Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine to Machine
- Machine to Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
M2M seems to mean any number of contradictory things. Seems like a buzz word neologism with little actual meaning. Ridernyc (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I've added a number of links to the page that show notability and that it is not a neologism or a buzz word, but an actual term in the computer and economic world. It seems quite notable, the article just needs to be badly rewritten. SilverserenC 20:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, neutral. Could you please separate the wheat from the chaff and mention some of the WP:RS-compliant sources here? From what I can see, you mostly added a bunch of press releases and sources with trivial mentions. — Rankiri (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Comverse to Demonstrate Machine-to-Machine Wireless Communication Using Intel(R) Technology" - Market Watch
- "Gemalto's Innovative Machine-to-Machine Solution Receives "2009 SmartGrid Product of the Year" Award" - Trading Markets Press Release
- "How Machine-to-Machine Communication Works" - HowStuffWorks
- "Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Communications" - MobileIN
- Believe me, there's a number, a ridiculous number, of news sources that I haven't put on the page. If you like me to, I will, but there's a lot. SilverserenC 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say something similar but figured I would let others comment. All the sources just throw around the phrase M2M, I really do not see how any of them prove it is not a poorly defined neologism. Seems to be a buzz word for networking 2 devices. I've seen no description beyond a PR buzzword. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a buzzword. "Machine to machine communications" is literally the name of the process of machine inter-communication. It is the word used in the computer world as the description of such an occurrence. SilverserenC 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then provide us with a source that shows that, not saying your wrong just saying not a single sources describes it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean the ones I put right up there? SilverserenC 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Only one of them describes M2M the rest are just press releases. They give no description of what m2m is, the how to article is the only one that comes close but it basically simply describes it as old fashioned telemetry using a wireless network. Not what you or the article has described. I've yet to see any 2 articles that agree on any sort of standard definition. Ridernyc (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- The article is wrong. Easy as that. Which is why i'm in the middle of rewriting it at this very moment. Machine to Machine communication is a notable topic that has seen much coverage. Did you hit next page on the How Stuff Works article? It describes its modern uses. SilverserenC 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Only one of them describes M2M the rest are just press releases. They give no description of what m2m is, the how to article is the only one that comes close but it basically simply describes it as old fashioned telemetry using a wireless network. Not what you or the article has described. I've yet to see any 2 articles that agree on any sort of standard definition. Ridernyc (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean the ones I put right up there? SilverserenC 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then provide us with a source that shows that, not saying your wrong just saying not a single sources describes it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a buzzword. "Machine to machine communications" is literally the name of the process of machine inter-communication. It is the word used in the computer world as the description of such an occurrence. SilverserenC 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say something similar but figured I would let others comment. All the sources just throw around the phrase M2M, I really do not see how any of them prove it is not a poorly defined neologism. Seems to be a buzz word for networking 2 devices. I've seen no description beyond a PR buzzword. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Feel free to rewrite it but it's a copyvio at the moment. I tagged it for CSD. I think it's notable but not when it's content is stolen from at least 2 other sites.OlYellerTalktome 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Changes were made but it's still a copyvio.OlYellerTalktome 23:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)- More changes were made. It's no longer a copyvio. SilverserenC 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good now on the copyvio side. I removed the db. As for it being notable, this subject isn't something I really know about so I'll refraid from commenting. OlYellerTalktome 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- More changes were made. It's no longer a copyvio. SilverserenC 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as this topic is more than just a neologism, i.e. we can write an article beyond a mere definition. See, for example, "When Machines Speak: M-to-M Technology Will Streamline Supply Chains and Bolster Service Revenues." Clearly the subject is worthy of article length coverage in WP:RS. I would add some of these myself to the article; however, as someone else seems to be in the process of doing a major revision, I'll hold off for now. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)