Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MODAClouds


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MODAClouds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Superficially looks notable and well-sourced, but in reality the sources fall in to one of two categories:
 * -Low quality and/or primary sources that DO mention the subject, but do nothing to establish notability to a satisfactory standard
 * -High quality secondary sources such as the Guardian, the BBC etc that make NO mention of the article subject itself. I've waded through all of the major press sources and they reference cloud computing in general but not the subject of this article. The Guardian quote referenced within the article is a particularly good example of that.
 * Overall, appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG or WP:ACADEMIC. K orr u ski Talk 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep According to Wikipedia sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language, I would question the quality of some of these sources compared to some of the sources used to give background to the article but references providing specific information about the article subject are legitimate secondary authorities on the subject that make direct reference to MODAClouds. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English, so significant discussion at workshops in academic circles and in industry as alluded to by many of the references count as perfectly acceptable evidence of notability. Also the project itself has increased notability in a time of economic crisis in Europe, where financial institutions across southern Europe are being bank-rolled by European citizens, there is a far higher level of scrutiny toward European membership, public funding and therefore it seems crucial for active citizens to understand the economies of European nations and where that money is being directed. It’s also a pertinent case study that looks into a notable issue that affects developers looking into cloud services which are an important tech industry across the globe. Particularly in light of Wikipedia’s own involvement in whistle-blowing and the role of security in data storage. Deletion of an article that contains objective descriptions of a fascinating subject, and a unique project within that context, that is both timely and important in a major developing technology industry that has received citations and coverage from a wide range of sources would seem wasteful and punitive. Wikipedia does not guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, but there is more than enough evidence to suggest this article remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudBurster (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a debate about if you think it is "important" or "fascinating", but if the subject satisfies the notability guidelines for a separate Wikipedia article. For that you need to find sources from people not involved in the project that cover it in depth. Even other languages are fine, if they are independent. It is hard to tell since the article only has raw urls and not full citations. It even seems to mislead using a link back to Wikipedia. From the project's own timeline it only started in March 2013. There are hundreds if not thousands of research and development projects that use the buzzwords of cloud computing to justify their funding. Many use Capital Letters to Make them Sound More Important, or claim to be a solution. Only time will tell which ones get noticed enough to justify articles. So suggest moving it into a user space until these problems can be resolved. In the meanwhile, if your interest is in this are, articles like Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development could use some work to be paraphrased into normal English, and a more balanced tone that discusses objectively if some of the promises made in the past were actually kept.  W Nowicki (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also observe that articles like CELAR and PaaSage that follow a very similar promotional pattern. They tend to speak mostly in future tense, without giving much context of when the acronyms started or how big they are, with bare urls and other issues. The WP:Single-purpose account created all three on August 22 and 23. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete no coverage found in non-primary sources (checked bbc, independent, telegraph, guardian, times and ac.uk). Coverage at Imperial isn't independent. Project is still in its very early stages, if it has become notable by the time it completes in c. Sept 2015, then re-create it. - Pointillist (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC). Postscript... It might be possible to assemble an article about "Multi-Cloud Applications" and/or "Federated Clouds", which could reference MODAClouds, PaaSage, OpenStack and perhaps the Reservoir model. But for that we'd need a neutral insider with access to both academic and industry-analyst content. - Pointillist (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.