Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Client/SOA: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:18, 11 February 2022

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. Majorly (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Client/SOA

Non-notable, original research, created and maintained almost entirely by one author with the recently stated aim, "to provide a focal point for discussion and definition of this term". Both Client-server and SOA are legitimate existing terms, but this combination of them purports to be a new and specific thing, about which this article is the main authority, and about which it is extremely prescriptive (see all the bold and uncited statements as to what this 'technology' must be in the article). See WP:NFT for example, and other discussion on the article's Talk page. Nigelj 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initially it appeared to me that the forward-slash in the name had messed up this nomination. If so, thanks to whoever rescued it. --Nigelj 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (modified Nigelj 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom KnightLago 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems completely theoretical and prescriptive. And the article was originally created by the person who defined the term. If it's not sourced, this buzzword shit needs to go. --- RockMFR 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *'''Delete''' per nom [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. Seems completely theoretical and prescriptive. And the article was originally created by the person who defined the term. If it's not sourced, this buzzword shit needs to go. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>