Talk:Commercial off-the-shelf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has been listed on VfD, but there was no consensus to delete. It was however deleted, then when it was recreated listed for speedy. I am attempting to restore the best version. Wish me luck. Rich Farmbrough 10:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. VfD works by consensus, not votes. If I analyze each of the votes, I see one delete, one weak merge/redir that states "there's probably not a lot of potential for the COTS term itself," one weak keep based on the amout of links to it (which can be fixed and is not a great reason), and one move to wiktionary, essentially a delete, since that had already been done. If we're going by consensus, I see only one vote out of four for keep (but gives an insufficient reason, and even that one says "or merge/redirect") and so the consensus looks like delete. Now why was this so urgent and egregious that you couldn't take it to VfU? --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Deleting COTS? its a very well known term in Software Engineering. I don't know who put the jimmy neutron link there but its relevancy with COTS is open for discussion. This term definately needs to be worked out in more detail. --Eelkefolmer·t 21:13, June 08, 2006 (UTC)
COTS is not only in wide use it is also part of the regulations for software procurement in many places (government or not) and getting COTS is a priority in the supply chain management for commercial organisations Fgenolini (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
