Talk:NTAP

Removed history of a single organization

I just removed this edit because it's unsourced and doesn't really talk about he development of the NTAP sector, just the history of one organization. This sort of thing is not really encyclopedic content for an article on the sector as a whole. A sourced history of the NTAP sector would be good, and mentioning how different organizations contributed to that would be very valid, but it really needs to illustrate the development of NTAPs as a whole and it needs to be sourced. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for inclusion

I'd argue that the existence of one of the first if not the first NTAP is significant, particularly in it's role in the development of other NTAPs and N-TEN. As for the source - I was at those meetings and based the history on notes and interviews. Timmg 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a look at one of our core policies - verifiability. Many new users think that Wikipedia is a great place to publish facts for the world that are not available elsewhere. But we are an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and we (should!) only be publishing information that has already been published by reliable sources. I appreciate you would like to see the article reflect what you know about the subject, but until someone publishes research into how the NTAP community developed in a respected publication Wikipedia should not be presenting original research in its place. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]