Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSMS


 * 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   redirect to SQL Server Management Studio. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

SSMS

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Whatever this is, SSMS does not refer to Secure SMS Messaging Protocol except by happenstance. This Google search shows pretty much every other goshdarned thing except text messaging. Instead this is part of an OR contest between two editors that is in evidence at Secure SMS Messaging Protocol.

Is this thing notable? Well certainly not as SSMS it isn't. Nor is it verifiable. Instead it is pushing one editor's scientific paper. A quasi-referenced article it is puffery instead.

The article discussion page makes illuminating reading. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * See related AfD at Articles for deletion/Secure SMS Messaging Protocol Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete liekly WP:COI fails notability guidelines only sources are papers by same group. --Salix (talk): 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect as Uncle G. --Salix (talk): 14:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever the outcome here, deletion isn't the answer, because a valid alternative exists by simply reverting to the very first revision of the article, which is a redirect to SQL Server Management Studio, which most definitely is widely documented as having this as an alternative title. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just done some research, some cleanup, and some wading through contributions and edit histories. It appears that someone has created this article and Secure SMS Messaging Protocol, and (as ) added the text at Short Message Service, xyrself.  Given that we already have this content elsewhere twice, therefore, I see no need for a third copy, or a second discussion.  So my opinion is that the original redirect should be restored, and that discussion of whether there is a subject for a separate article, broken out of Short Message Service, be confined to Articles for deletion/Secure SMS Messaging Protocol. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With the massive COI mess it seemed to me that an AfD nomination was the most likely catalyst to a decent end result. I was minded to revert to the original redirect, but foresaw only some reversion wars as the inevitable outcome.  Wiser heads than mine need to create a consensus based outcome I think.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is three of us in agreement. Let's see who else agrees. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator I can see no objection at all to a speedy close to revert to the initial redirect. I would support  that outcome wholeheartedly.  Nothing will be lost since the other article exists, but the closure of the AfD (whatever it ends up being) adds some weight to an argument against reviving this as "battleground mark II" for the two sparring parties.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:06, 9 April 2009 (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.