Talk:List of network management systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Systems
Systems science Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating: List Class Low importance  Field: Systems
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] Actually

This is actually a list of network and systems management products, not just Network Management like the title says. If the intent is to categorize as network management and systems management, then some products should be moved to another list. Of course, some of the product suites listed (such as OpenView) cover both network and systems management, so it would be easiest to just change the title.


I was explaining network management to someone today, found this page and had a few thoughts.

--Jherr 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable entries

Another editor, angry at having his company's article deleted, tagged many of the articles on this list for deletion. Those AfDs have been reversed as WP:POINT violations, however this did flag the fact that some of these articles are about non-notable companies and products. --A. B. (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've worked through several of these so far:
  1. ByteSphere -- now proposed for deletion
  2. Caligare -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caligare
  3. Infosim -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosim
  4. Intellipool Network Monitor -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellipool Network Monitor
  5. Netdisco -- tagged for notability review
  6. Network Administration Visualized -- tagged for notability review
--A. B. (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
More articles:
  1. NetQoS -- tagged for notability review
  2. Netdisco -- tagged for notability review
  3. Netrac -- tagged for notability review and now proposed for deletion
    • Netrac FaM -- now proposed for deletion
    • TrafficGuard -- now proposed for deletion
    • Netrac PMM -- now proposed for deletion
    • ServiceImpact -- now proposed for deletion
  4. OutSystems IT Asset Manager -- now speedy deleted
  5. Paessler Router Traffic Grapher -- tagged for notability review
  6. Sysorb -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sysorb
  7. Xratel -- now proposed for deletion
Can others look at these and assess them for notability?
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(List updated --A. B. (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC))


BixData -- now proposed for deletion
--A. B. (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


An IP removed BixData's proposed for deletion tag so I have taken this article Articles for deletion; see:
Also:
  • Crannog Software -- tagged for notability review.
--A. B. (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Update:
--A. B. (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom.
--A. B. (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I agree with your assessment of these articles being non-notable, but I'm not sure why you tagged all the original authors for COI. My understanding was that we assume good faith unless evidence points otherwise, and I can't see anything in their usernames or elsewhere to suggest a COI. —gorgan_almighty 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • ByteSphere was edited by User:Bytesphere and User:Nms consult (his/her only edit).
  • Caligare was edited by User:Caligare.
  • Infosim‎ was edited by User:Haslbe j who added Infosim‎ links to various other articles. Note the slightly POV tone.
  • NetQoS was started by User:Larry2342, who added NetQoS to various other articles.
  • All of the Netrac-related articles were edited by User:Yarone whose only edits have been to these and other TTI Telecom‎-related articles.
  • Paessler Router Traffic Grapher was eddited by Dpaessler; Dirk Paessler is the company founder.
  • Sysorb was edited by User:Tbf@evalesco.com; Evalesco is the developer of Sysorb.
  • Xratel was edited by User:Tmegale whose other edits were to add Xratel links. His first edit was tagged by another editor as an {{advert}}.
  • User:Kobusjooste's only edits were to Bixdata and he/she works for the company [1].
  • OutSystems IT Asset Manager was edited by User:Tiago simoes, who added OutSystems links elsewhere; note the tone of his edits.[2]. User:Gaiolas did not edit this article but added OutSystems links elsewhere. I declined to tag User:R.castelo yesterday because I wasn't sure about his edits; on closer examination today they are all OutSystems-related and some are slightly POV. I also declined to tag User:Antonioavmelo because I wasn't confident of the COI in spite of the tone of these edits. OutSystems was founded in Portugal; I have not checked pt.wikipedia yet for any related edits.
  • Crannog Software was edited by User:LizardKingSchwing. These are his only edits; someone by that handle has promoted Crannog on another site.
  • Intellipool Network Monitor, Network Administration Visualized and Netdisco were started by established editors with no obvious COI, so I did not tag any related user talk pages with {{coi}} tags.
The {{coi}} tag's wording is pretty mild and is informative more than remonstrative. It carries an info icon rather than harsher looking warning icons.
I tried to be thorough in sizing up these articles and these editors but I concede I may have made mistakes and I am certainly open to others' opinions. --A. B. (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the above exchange I tagged the SysAid article with a {{coi}} tag and left {{uw-coi}} notes for the following similarly named, single purpose editors:
  • User:Relp (created a previous version of the article that was deleted as blatant spam)
  • User:Coariel
  • User:Arielp‎
--A. B. (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I agree with the placement of the COI tags, especially in the cases where the editor is known to work for the company, and when the editor name is the same as the article name. Note that COI does not assume bad faith, nor does it preclude the tagged editr from working on the article. It just lets everybody know that there is some primary-source and or WP:OR that may find its way into the article, and asks the editor to be extra careful of how they edit. In the above cases, it is an appropriate addition I feel. ArakunemTalk 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed solution

First I want to claim ignorance about what it means for this to be made into a category and how that would help solve this problem.

That being said, I'd like to propose the following solution. In late 2007, I began what I believe to be a (if not the most) well-researched study of the history of systems and network management technologies. I went back to the dawn of computers (the so-called computer room era) and up to the present. In doing so, I identified 3 distinct periods: The Closed/Integrated period, The Closed/Independent period and the Open/Independent period.

By telling the story of systems/network management in this way, the emergence of the various tools in the current laundry list can be placed in their appropriate context, and on something of a timeline. This will, I think, balance the needs of Wikipedia to stay true to its npov and encyclopedic principles and support what I believe are the legitimate desires for product owners to be recognized as part of this landscape.

Before I invest more time in this endeavor, I would appreciate a thumbs up/thumbs down from the powers that be.

Gtewallace (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider myself as one of the "powers to be", but having basic understanding about the Wikipedia principles, I'd consider an external review a noteworthy reference. As it is entirely based on facts, I dare to claim it can't be counted as original research. My suggestion would be to just list a few important NMSs in the main article and link to the external reference for more, then remove the List of network management systems article completely. It does not contain much information, aside from collecting wikilinks. It should at least changed to be a subarticle of Network management system. Making it a category (as suggested above) would also be a good idea.
Or didn't I get you correctly? Is your study intended to be released independent from Wikipedia or in form of an article therein? --Onitake (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)