Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownfield architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brownfield architecture
Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication why this is notable or just a neologism or protologism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Brownfield land is a term used in Urban Planning for former industrial sites, so I thought this was a related term when I clicked. However, for this term, there are no sources, no verifiability, and no apparent notability, so it should probably be deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context. I read the line of text in the article and I learned nothing. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete It does make logical sense - to me at least- as an extension of the brownfield term used in the building industry, but I can't find any evidence of significant usage, although if there was, it might be a reasonable redirect to Legacy systemFlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately. Has to go, possibly as a CSD A1. I did try to save it, but there really doesn't seem to be anything. Unreferenced, probably WP:NEO, and a complete lack of anything on the Internet could mean WP:MADEUP. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I did much the same as you there. "Brownfield architecture" as a phrase didn't bring up any context-relevant references in itself, although there were quite a few IT-related webpages where brownfield and architecture were mentioned with legacy systems, but these were in connection with IT issues relating to (bricks-and-mortar) architecture. However brownfield (without the architecture) does seem to have some currency in the InformationTechnology field. This, for example, from Cisco systems, where the term seems to be used in the expectation that the reader is familiar with it, rather than as a handy explanatory metaphor. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Alex Muller. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and others. Like UltraExactZZ, I expected this to be related to industrial sites. Tim Ross·talk 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- More a comment than anything else, but brownfield deployment, with much the same meaning as that used in this article, does seem to be a term in common usage in the field.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you make a very good point. It took all of 30 seconds for this to give this – more research would be necessary, but I'm wondering whether it's worth a move to Brownfield Deployment and expand... decisions, decisions — alex.muller (talk • edits) 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- (slightly late in replying :)) Possibly it should be expanded within the Legacy system article. It seems a valid topic, but having it as a section within the Legacy system article would give it context, rather than just a definition. Redirects (and possibly alternate use messages) would be fine. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you make a very good point. It took all of 30 seconds for this to give this – more research would be necessary, but I'm wondering whether it's worth a move to Brownfield Deployment and expand... decisions, decisions — alex.muller (talk • edits) 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/Redirect to Brownfield deployment A simple definition that I can't see is doing much harm. It's not a vanity page or something controversial. If someone knows more about it then they can expand or reference it (may be a better use of time than haggling over if it should be deleted). Who is harmed by this mirco-article existing? Mike Young (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:NEO. "A simple definition" belongs in Wiktionary, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 30 January 2008 (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.
