Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Infrastructure

Dynamic Infrastructure

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This neologism is not notable, there are serious verifiability issues, little in the way of neutral point of view and it has read like an advert ever since it was created *from an IBM patent and trademark* (per edit logs). With sections like "Need for a holistic approach" and "Benefits of having a dynamic infrastructure" and no discussion whatsoever (beyond a pronouncement from User:Kbrhouse - a SPA created for the purpose of editing this article) it is clear that Wikipedia is being abused as a soapbox. Most problematic though is this edit which removed my dated prod *and* forward-dated two article issues templates (confusing & cleanup) while adding a raft of problematic text. CloudComputing (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that other companies may have been counting on overturning the IBM trademark since googling "Dynamic Infrastructure" -IBM returns 68,500 hits. I assume that terminating the cancelation proceeding for the trademark on 24 August 2009 means that the term is now completely in the hands of IBM. However, the term may still be notable in its own right and deserves some discussion. See WP:PRODUCT. It seems that many vendors are now using the term "Infrastructure 2.0". Perhaps that's a better name for a cleaned up version of the article that might have a section specifically on Dynamic Infrastructure. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, you are throwing a lot of stones at User:Kbrhouse when you seem to have your own SPA issues. Since IBM is pushing Dynamic Infrastructure as part of their Cloud Computing solution, there's a chance that you work for a direct competitor of IBM in this field. If so, it would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose when proposing to delete an article related to IBM. Disclaimer: I have never worked for IBM or any Cloud Computing vendor. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I appreciate your right to an opinion you are wrong with your accusations and perhaps should try assuming good faith. Discussing an IBM trademark in a generic context makes the article even more problematic and if it is to remain then it should at least explain the trademark situation. CloudComputing (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]