Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Context-aware network


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Context-aware network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see some evidence that "Context-aware network" is a real concept: However I have no confidence that this article accurately describes the concept of "context-aware network" that the above sources discuss. It seems to be a lot of unreferenced assertions and original research.

It does cite one published book (the first cite above), but it doesn't clearly identify which page(s) in the book supports which of its assertions. Although the book does briefly discuss an "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network" at one point (p.22), what it has to say about the topic appears to have only limited connection with what this article talks about.

Also found which appears to plagarise/copyvio this Wikipedia article (given most of the article text was written in 2005, and that book was published in 2012, I presume the plagarism/copyvio is from Wikipedia to CRC Press and not the other way around).

While this topic itself might be notable enough for an article (if someone was sufficiently motivated to write one), the currently existing article is basically unsalvageable, and so deletion is the best option. WP:TNT. SJK (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note that it was not meant to support anything in the article., on the (different) subject of context-aware services moreover.  The insertion of a section heading in the middle of the sentence was done by another editor, 7 years later. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the previous AFD Intelligent computer network (on which you all commented) is related to this one, since they are on a similar topic, if I remember right (I can't actually confirm this any more since as a non-admin I no longer have access to the revision history of the deleted article) both were created by a similar IP at around the same time, and have similarities in language, and also this article was actually proposed at one point as a possible merge target in the discussion on that article. Since you all commented on that previous AFD but haven't commented here yet, I thought I'd draw this to your attention to this one in case you wish to comment here as well. Thanks SJK (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:TNT. This is an excellent topic for an article, should anyone wish to write one. Unfortunately we don't have one as yet, and this article (pretty much unchanged since the first draft in 2005) is so lacking that I see it more as a barrier to a decent article than a useful starting point or framework. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete. The actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states"Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing."


 * The current draft is in no way an obstacle to improvement. If the nominator or anyone else thinks that they can do better, they can overwrite any or all of the current text per WP:REWRITE.  The deletion function is neither required nor helpful.  If we were to delete the article instead, this would tend to disrupt development of the topic in several ways.  Firstly, there would be no existing text to attract readers.  Secondly, anyone trying to recreate the topic would find that it had been previously deleted and this would explicitly deter recreation.  Thirdly, article creation now has to jump several hurdles due to non-wiki bureaucracy which now makes it quite difficult for casual readers to start new topics.  So, it is much easier for people to revise an existing page than to create a new one.  Fourthly, by maintaining an edit history, rather than deleting it, we are all able to inspect the history of the topic and so, in the event of dispute, able to ascertain what exactly has been attempted over time.  This encourages experimentation and boldness, because we are able to revert to a prior version, if something doesn't work out.  See also WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP.
 * Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The existing text is a nett negative to the project. In no way does it "attract readers". It might confuse some, and it reflects badly on WP in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Andy Dingley. The actual topic title may be notable, but all indications seem to point towards the fact that this article does not, in any way, correctly or accurately describe what the actual concept is.  There is a big difference between an article that is imperfect, and one that is comprised entirely of WP:Original Research.  WP:TNT may not be official policy, but the idea that incorrect, borderline incoherent, articles are better than nothing is ludicrous.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks ANY reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required WP:GNG.  I agree with nom that the term does appear in scholarly articles but that it's unclear that what this article describes is consistent with what is described in those scholarly sources.  Imho, this entire article appears to be impermissible WP:OR.  Msnicki (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The current text is not referenced or focused enough to be of value to readers or for other editors to build from. We could WP:STUBIFY if there were a single referenced statement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Rorshacma. Fails WP:GNG and could use some WP:TNT. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2019 (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.