Talk:HP SPaM

I've restored this page; it had been tagged for speedy deletion after having been reduced to a statement that the article had been deleted because the subject didn't exist. I still have concerns about this article that I think need to be addressed. Although I did a Google search that gave me enough references to make it reasonable that this division of HP actually exists, the article has a distinct lack of sources that would tend to confirm that fact and contains phrases like "legend has it" that are contrary to the reliable sources policy. The main article for Hewlett-Packard doesn't contain any reference to this division, which brings questions of notability to my mind. As well, the exterior link at the end doesn't seem to contain any reference to the subject of the article. I urge either the creator or other editors to bolster this article by addressing these issues. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of HP SPaM[edit]

To whom it may concern,

The HP SPaM article that I created has been tagged for speedily deleted from Wikipedia because it is considered as Patent Nonsense, providing no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

The article itself talks about an internal consulting group that is well-known within Operations Research / Management Science community. Wikipedia is the right forum to allow practitioners in other fields to learn of its existence and roles in corporation, in addition to HP Labs where we have been collaborating with them regularly. Similar groups in other companies have also been recognized and featured in magazine/article.

The article is not yet complete with remaining content to be contributed by others in the spirits of Wikipedia. So I do not see how the article is classified as having no meaningful content, especially when it is at its early stage. I'd therefore like to request that the article be carefully reviewed for undeletion.

Best Regards, Apiruk.d (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you know what to do -- submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and put your money where your mouth is. I have another expression for you -- action talks, bullshit walks. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue[edit]

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

HP SPaM[edit]

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a punk or vandal and neither are the other members of our team nor the other members of the Ops Research or Supply Chain community who are familiar with our work. The acronym for our group is unfortunate in this context. Also, I agree that we may need to work toward adding content that would be of wider interest than our group. That is where our focus is and why this particualr discussion thread should come to an end. Thanks for your (74.234.39.218 & Accounting4Taste) diligence in making sure that the content in wikipedia is legit.99.139.66.52 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged to Hewlett Packard at most[edit]

A couple of the refs don't mention SPaM, another is a .pdf which is mainly about IDEO and has one paragraph about SPaM. There are no google news articles which mention "SPaMsters" in the context of a name for members of a "Strategic Planning and Modelling" group. The award by INFORM was to Hewlett Packard, itself, not solely to the "Hewlett Packard Strategic Planning and Marketing" group. The papers written listed here are attributed to the individual people who have written them. They may be members of SPaM, but these articles aren't written by SPaM, but by the individual people involved, it is misleading in the same way as saying SPAM won the inform prize, when it is Hewlett Packard as a whole that won. Here we have it the other way round- the article is claiming SPaM wrote these articles, but it is individual people who have written them and gained the notability from them, not SPaM as a whole. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) The only google mentions of HP SPaM are on summaries of 2 people's (perhaps notable in themselves) careers (a sentence in a brief, paragraph-long resumes of a speaker or consultant, for instance). There are no google news mentions of HP SPaM. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I have no doubt it exists- but notability is not inherited and this is not notable in and of itself, independent of the Hewlett Packard article. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. SPaM is well known to people within the INFORMS community, especially in supply chain management field. As for the INFORMs prize, HP is one of the few winners in which the excerpt has to mention the name of company's internal group as major contributor of the award. The trophy itself says "HP SPaM", in fact. As for the papers, they were part of SPaM works, written while the authors were/are with SPaM. The authors put "Strategic Planning and Modeling" as their affiliation when writing the papers, and they were all aware of how supportive SPaM group is to the process. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.211.153.73 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad some groups have heard of HP Spam but unfortunately this is not the INFORMS wiki or even the Strategic Planning industry wiki. Wikipedia has articles about notable companies such as Hewlett Packard itself, which have been discussed as the primary subject of reliable third party sources, at length. The rest of the world has not heard of HP SPaM independently of Hewlett Packard. Even within INFORMS they are known as part of Hewlett Packard because that's what they are, a group within HP which has never been mentioned independently of HP, in fact such a thing would not be possible, and they have never been the subject, as a group, of articles which are not primarily about them, rather than about Hewlett Packard, in mainstream media. Nor even been mentioned at all. [1]. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

This article was written with the pronoun "we", which means in all probability that a member of SPaM wrote it. It must be either that or it has been copied from somewhere. special, random, Merkinsmum 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience[edit]

Fellow editors, let's not get carried away. (I came here due to the posting at WP:COIN). The name of this article is (unfortunately) quite likely to set off alarms here. I'm hoping that the creator, User:Apiruk.d, is willing to work with us to improve the article. I'll make an attempt to contact him. If nothing works, I agree that AfD might be considered in a week or so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and email. The article was named HP SPaM in the spirits of HP Labs, but it becomes apparent that the article should have been named "HP Strategic Planning and Modeling (SPaM)" to avoid some of the criticism. I believe the tone of the article has been very neutral in its contents. The group itself will not monetarily benefit from publicity any more than what HP Labs (or divisions within university that have their own Wikipedia sites) do, although academicians as well as professionals will benefit from SPaM knowledge sharing. Regards Apiruk.d (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is nothing concrete in this article about how the recommendations of the SPM group have affected the world. It's not very important where their offices are located, or who their past members have been. Also, a complete list of their papers isn't very helpful. (Wikipedia is not a bibliography). If somebody could extract a nugget from one or two from some of the more accessible papers, and actually explain what was done, that would be useful. I wrote to you because I hoped your creation of this article reflected some ability to quickly locate more detailed info about this group, whether you were connected with them or not. If it's not improved quite soon, I'm afraid the current article may be nominated for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know what they actually do[edit]

Not to be picky, but the various comments on the activities of the SPaM group are super-vague. For example, here is some of the language from the INFORMS award, which is #2 in the reference list: These rigorous modeling and analytical methods have saved Hewlett-Packard and its supply chain partners hundreds of millions of dollars while increasing their competitive advantage. We know that they USE modeling and analytical methods, but applied to what? So far these comments just seem to be describing the corporate role of the group, not any actual activities. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the four different anonymous editors who have recently been improving the article. If you have any more time to spend, please consider adding some appropriate material to the text of the article, if you can find some that would fit. Most of the newly-added references are not available online, so the true activities of this group remain hard to determine. Doesn't HP make any technical reports or articles available on-line? EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list too long[edit]

There are too many items in the publication list. Isn't there a website somewhere we could send people to for complete details? Also we have no hint of what work Billington actually did. Can't anyone give examples? He must have been a persuasive guy if he got Lew Platt to agree to start the group, and we assume that his work must have led to some results. Can't anyone give a hint of what the results were? EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What links here?[edit]

Hint: only one article, which was not how I got here (I was playing with Random Article). I really don't see why this article is still here. How is it important? That Jason (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if we had better coverage of Operations research or business topics generally, there would be more incoming links. The outside comments on the work of this group in publications like Harvard Business Review seem to establish notability. The article as a whole is still not easy to understand. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HP SPaM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]