English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Machine to Machine
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
- 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 keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- I'm actually done with what I was doing. If you want to work on it, go ahead.SilverserenC 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- After careful consideration, I have decided to retire from this project and so will be unable to help at this time. Take care. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can see, this is all marketing hype. Note please the first issue of MMMag (http://web.archive.org/web/20030718092602/www.m2mmag.com/m2mmag.asp), which characterize M2M in a way to encompass essentially all communications: "In fact, there is a large, untapped market emerging in the machine-to-machine, mobile-to-machine, man-to-machine, machine-to-man, and machine-to-mobile (M2M) marketplace."
Also, "the process of machine inter-communication" has existed for many years, and pretty much every computer protocol has the purpose of inter or intra machine communication. With all due respect, the how stuff works reference is less than impressive, if for no other reason than it contains the phrase 'When machines "talk" they do so in a language known as "telemetry."' Telemetry is not a language, it's a just the process of monitoring something as a distance (and I notice that similar phrasing is in the article without citation). None of the references I've looked at have any substantial technical information distinguishing M2M from the general concept of data communications. As a networking geek, I have to ask, are there any RFCs related to this topic? Any discussion about how M2m fits within the traditional OSI model? Nuujinn (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just because that source, which is not being used in the article anyways, describes it like that doesn't mean anything. The sources we actually have describe it more as the process by which greater and more expanding networks of computer communications are being created throughout the world. If you think I need to reword the article, I will. I'm off to expand it right now as it is anyway. SilverserenC 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless, then, taking your argument, if machine to machine is related to data communication, it is essentially a field actually, then according to WP:LENGTH, it should be summarized in the main article, while still having its separate full article here. Truly, machine to machine has the possibility of being too long to correctly make it fit in the data communications article. SilverserenC 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say, let me try to be more clear. As far as I can tell, the term "machine to machine" and "m2m" have no technical meaning or reference, but rather serve as a buzz word for marketing purposes. Communication between machines is the essence of all intra and internet connections. I do not think it is a field--if it were a field, then surely there would be courses offered in it, and professional certifications for it. If it were a communications protocol, there should be an RFC for it. If it's a system for communications, it ought to be described somewhere in terms of how it adheres to or differs from the OSI model. I can find nothing on the net other than vague characterizations with a marketing orientation. I cannot find any sources or references on the net to the term that have any specificity to them, the only common thread is that the terms are used by companies selling data communication services over cellular networks.
- Also, you suggested, I believe, that we should look at the how stuff works article ("Did you hit next page on the How Stuff Works article? It describes its modern uses"), and it is a reference used in the article. I read the entire how stuff works article and found nothing that I'd say distinguishes m2m from everyday data communications. I'd be happy to look over any technical article you can find, but there are none listed in the article so far. If you find some references with real, substantial technical information in them, I'll help you rewrite it. Nuujinn (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Communication Challenges Established (U)SIM Card Technology" - GD
- Definition of M2M on Whatis?
- "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings"
- I found out, as I searched and found these sources, that I was debating the wrong point. I found what I should have been debating and how the initial part of the article is wrong (which i'll be correcting soon). "Machine to Machine" is a technology, not a communication. It is a set of technologies that have specific purposes and utilize data communications and telemetry to communicate, yes, but they are a technology that uses them. It is for this reason that it deserves its own article, because it is a type of technology, new(er) technology. That's my argument. And i'm sticking by that. SilverserenC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- There, I changed the intro. Read it again and tell me what you think. SilverserenC 08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- See this is the point it's a porrly defined neologism, you seem to keep trying to redefine what this is as we point out issues and you find contradictory sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that it is not a neologism because the sources themselves go back to 2003, it is actually clearly defined. In all of the sources I used, M2M is defined as the technology that does these things. I was just being an idiot before and didn't notice that, but every source defines it as a technology. SilverserenC 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes because you are cherry picking sources, the how to article is contradicts your sources. There is no standard definition for this term. Ridernyc (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're the one cherry-picking them if you're only using one to say all of the others are invalid. Besides, it says "Three very common technologies -- wireless sensors, the Internet and personal computers -- are coming together to create machine-to-machine communications, or M2M." Clearly, based on the other sources, this means that these technologies that are M2M use M2M communications...because they are M2M. The writer of that article wrote it badly, but the fact that M2M is a technology coincides with all of the other references. However, if you would like me not to use the how to article just for that, even though it is a fine source, okay, I won't. That doesn't change the fact that the other sources are perfectly fine. SilverserenC 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes because you are cherry picking sources, the how to article is contradicts your sources. There is no standard definition for this term. Ridernyc (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that it is not a neologism because the sources themselves go back to 2003, it is actually clearly defined. In all of the sources I used, M2M is defined as the technology that does these things. I was just being an idiot before and didn't notice that, but every source defines it as a technology. SilverserenC 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- See this is the point it's a porrly defined neologism, you seem to keep trying to redefine what this is as we point out issues and you find contradictory sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say, let me try to be more clear. As far as I can tell, the term "machine to machine" and "m2m" have no technical meaning or reference, but rather serve as a buzz word for marketing purposes. Communication between machines is the essence of all intra and internet connections. I do not think it is a field--if it were a field, then surely there would be courses offered in it, and professional certifications for it. If it were a communications protocol, there should be an RFC for it. If it's a system for communications, it ought to be described somewhere in terms of how it adheres to or differs from the OSI model. I can find nothing on the net other than vague characterizations with a marketing orientation. I cannot find any sources or references on the net to the term that have any specificity to them, the only common thread is that the terms are used by companies selling data communication services over cellular networks.
- Ridernyc is right. The thing is, I do this kind of thing for a living and have since the mid 80s, and so far, there is absolutely nothing substantial in any of the sources, and as Ridernyc points out, the sources that are available are both vague and contradict one another. I'd be happy to help with this and support a keep argument if anyone could articulate some technical definition, an RFC, documentation of a single protocol, a description of an API, something, anything more substantial than "there is one machine here that's talking to another one over there". The way the term is used, it's just a buzz word from marketers used as a substitute for network communication. Nuujinn (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings"
- The first paragraph in the abstract for this source has the perfect definition, in my opinion, of what M2M is. How is that not clear and concise? SilverserenC 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ridernyc is right. The thing is, I do this kind of thing for a living and have since the mid 80s, and so far, there is absolutely nothing substantial in any of the sources, and as Ridernyc points out, the sources that are available are both vague and contradict one another. I'd be happy to help with this and support a keep argument if anyone could articulate some technical definition, an RFC, documentation of a single protocol, a description of an API, something, anything more substantial than "there is one machine here that's talking to another one over there". The way the term is used, it's just a buzz word from marketers used as a substitute for network communication. Nuujinn (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But how do you reconcile that definition with one provided in the other sources? Some stress that M2M isn't limited to machines, some don't. "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings" describes a study done using XML and IP over standard inter and intranets, but most of the sources emphasis M2M is done over cell networks. And almost all of them have a marketing slant one way or another, and use M2M as a buzz word (including "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings", which seems to a grant report). I just think this would be better as a paragraph or two in another article and also as a wiktionary entry. Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Because the other sources also say that same thing, about it being a technology. Yes, they then go into its uses in other things and the abilities of its communication, but it is still a technology. Most of the sources go into cell networks because that is currently the biggest use for such technology, aka creating cell devices that are able to link with each other. If it is the main current use, then of course most of the sources are going to focus on that use. But not all of the sources do, such as the Infoworld article.
- It is also not a buzz word because Machine to Machine is the term that has been in use for the past ten years. It is a legitimate term in the computer industry. Yes, marketing campaigns are going to pick up on it easier because it sounds catchy, but that doesn't lessen the legitimacy of the term within the computer and economic world.
- Also, it should not just be shortened into another article because of the high amount of information that exists about it and that can be poured into an encyclopedia article. It is fit for an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and also deserves its own article, because it is its own thing and not subject to something else.
- As an example that the sources say it is a technology, look at this:
- "M2M is a set of technologies"
- "machine to machine comprises of a number of separate technologies"
- "using machine to machine technology"
- “Connecting consumer electronics and machine-to-machine (M2M) devices to a wireless network requires a unique set of assets”
- [http://m2m.com/index.jspa "Community for machine-to-machine, embedded wireless, �and connected consumer devices development"]
- "Gemalto has developed a unique technological advancement aimed at meeting smart grid service needs."
- The only sources I did not use was the how stuff works article because it speaks differently about machine to machine and i've been seriously debating taking it out of the article and the IT Business Edge interview because the guy speaks of M2M applications and not about M2M itself (which is why that source isn't being used for the intro). SilverserenC 20:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But how do you reconcile that definition with one provided in the other sources? Some stress that M2M isn't limited to machines, some don't. "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings" describes a study done using XML and IP over standard inter and intranets, but most of the sources emphasis M2M is done over cell networks. And almost all of them have a marketing slant one way or another, and use M2M as a buzz word (including "Machine to Machine (M2M) Technology in Demand Responsive Commercial Buildings", which seems to a grant report). I just think this would be better as a paragraph or two in another article and also as a wiktionary entry. Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - an obviously necessary and self-evident technical neologism. Usage plenty. Even if the bulk of the definition looks like an advert, the term usage is proven. Mukadderat (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note - Silver, I'm going to ask that you refrain from commenting on the AfD anymore. You've now replied to every single comment and made over 3 times as many comments as there are !voters in this AfD. I suggest taking a break from the AfD and addressing any problems brought up about the subject in the article and/or on its talk page. I'm not going to site any guidelines or policies but give your history and the current situation, I think it's fair to ask. OlYellerTalktome 20:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the information found on this page is necessary for companies looking for a machine-to-machine solution with little understanding of the industry. User:veinblz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.164.53 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — 81.98.164.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. Uh-oh, looks like someone unsynergetic is in dire need of a paradigm shift. In case you didn't notice, from Web 2.0, Cloud computing and M-Commerce to utility computing, convergence and crowdsourcing, vaguely defined nonsensical buzzwords have become the so-called news media's bread and butter. Sources like [1], [2], [3][4],[5], [6], [7], or [8] give the "emerging" marketing term enough WP:RS coverage to pass through WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (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.