Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology evangelism


 * 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   keep. JForget 01:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Technology evangelism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't think this should be a separate article from Technology evangelist. I propose redirecting it, or making it into a disambiguation page between Technology evangelist and Platform evangelism. - EdoDodo  talk 08:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Author's response (JimPlamondon)
If I were *done* with the article Technology evangelism, I would agree entirely. However, it is essentially a stub, having been started just before I began a separate project. I expect to get back to it in min-July 2010.

In brief, the distinction between Technology Evangelism and Platform Evangelism stems from the difference between one-sided platforms (such as a text editor) and a two-sided platform (such as a text-editor that supports specialized plug-ins produced by third-party software vendors). Both kinds of platforms can create network effects; on both platforms, these effects can be both direct (among users) and indirect (among users and vendors of complementary goods such as test-editor-specific training materials). However, the differences in pricing structures and platform access are quite different. Consider, for example, Apple's recent ban on the use, in iOS apps sold through its AppStore, of any non-Apple-approved APIs. This makes perfect sense for a two-sided platform (like the iOS), but would make no sense at all for a one-sided platform.

You'll note that my article on Platform Evangelism refers frequently to the pre-existing article on two-sided platforms. I realized, after starting to write the Technology evangelism article, that it needed to refer to a similar article on one-sided platforms, which did not yet exist. I need to write this supporting article, and one on multi-sided markets, and a article to connect them all, to make sense of the whole thing.

Also, I expect to add a section to the Technology evangelism article that references historical examples, such as the War of the Currents, the battle over rail gauges, color television, etc. Many industries start with such an evangelism battle, then settle down. Computing never settles down, due to Moore's Law. There are lots of references for these data points; it just needs to be summarized and cited.

Then, most of the content of the Technology evangelist article can be shifted over to the Technology evangelism article, with Technology evangelist being a very short stub saying that "Technology Evangelist (sometimes "Technical Evangelist") is a job title for someone who practices technology evangelism."

So, gimme a month, and I'll flesh it out. ;-) - Jim Plamondon (somewhat later on 27 June)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPlamondon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep for now and give the editor a month or two to improve it along the lines he suggests.    DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I added and sourced a well known Technology Evangelist to the article. Frankly I don't see the need for the multiple articles either, so I'm leaning towards "merge" but I'll give the editor some time to work it out.  It certainly is a real subject worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2010 (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.