Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meshup

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. - Bobet 06:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meshup

Whether viewed as a technology, company, or website, MeshUp fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. No matches on Lexis, 220 unique ghits for "meshup" (not all of which are related to the subject of this article, and the first of which is a post by the author of this article). Also no Alexa ranking for meshup.org. Prod removed by author. I warned the author that I thought the article would end up being deleted, but he continued to work on the article without providing any evidence of notability. The references listed in the bibliography have to do with mesh networking but say nothing about the subject of this article. Could be I'm missing something, but this seems to me a pretty clear delete. Pan Dan 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First at all, we - the authors - don't have any commercial aim. as Pan Dan point out. I dont understand the obstination to delete a new technological term that increase each day their worldwide use, i.e. IBM initiative of identification are using this ID-MeshUp term, for complex system of distributed networks. You can revise lots of other more obsolete, confuded and bad explained terms i.e. Mashup. Technical articles, comments, podcasts, workshops are using the similar term mashup with different definitions creating confusion. Let us to start defining first meshup that it is now clear, used, understandable and defined at least in Europe, where all is not only based on web integration and applications. If there isn't lexis matches now there are at least one wikipedia match that it is often what the practitioners are looking for the explanation in wikipedia. When We finish with the Meshup article We will start with mashup. I agree that the inclusion of the past bibliography in this article were confusing. Please by patient because this article is not easy to write. Ferran

• Delete. Is this a neologism as well? Though I'm not aware of a guideline on it, an article should only concern one subject. Musaabdulrashid 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ferran.Cabrer Musaabdulrashid, Good morning. I am absolutely agree with you hat this a neologism. Meshup is a Recent technological term, but it is unique and well defined by specialist in IT in particular to network information and communication, when they have to interconnect distributed and heterogeneous data, devices and networks to provide new IT services or applications. If you consider that neologisms don't have space i wikipedia, I delete the article of meshup. thanks in advance for your understanding, Ferran Cabrer en Ferran Cabrer i Vilagut Skype: Ferran.Cabrer CONSEN.org CONSEN (EEIG) Euro-Group Euro-Cluster pro-Information Society Information & Communication Environments Jaume Fabra 12 08004 Barcelona

FP6 European Research Projects: - TOSSAD - SECURE-FORCE

COONDI COoperation ON DIversity WEKOMS web2.0 for your organization on-Net See you in DrupalCon 21-23Sep06-BXL D.TF Strategic Agenda IST-2006 21-23Nov06-HEL Exhibit IST-Media-Profile MeshUp 19-21Apr07-BCN Network 2.0

NO CRIMES OF WAR

• Comment re: "neologism." To be fair, I don't think the problem with the article is that Meshup is a neologism. I also don't think that the article concerns more than one subject as Musa implies. It seems to me the article is about a technology called Meshup, which would be fine if Meshup were notable, but it's not. I brought up WP:CORP and WP:WEB in my nom to make the point that even if we tried to save the article by somehow viewing it as a business or a website instead of a technology, then it still wouldn't pass WP's guidelines. Pan Dan 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A good reason to get rid of it, as I still don't know what this is about. I'll add confusion as a primary reason for deletion if its obvious I have no idea what I'm talking about. Musaabdulrashid 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. (Ferran, that's three strikes.) It's time to point out that the author/s of Meshup, 213.96.0.6 and Ferran.cabrer, have committed three acts of vandalism since this AfD started: [1], [2], and [3]. The last one was particularly bad, as it resulted in several hours of confusion on the how-to page for AfD's. Pan Dan 13:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this neologism per WP:NOT. Wryspy 03:46, 20 September 2006 (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.