Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identifier 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   Userfy. Userfy to User:Nakon/Identifier Network. Please contact me if you would like the page moved to your userspace instead. Nakon 22:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Identifier Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable research. This page, a (rather crude, sorry for that) merger of a slew of pages by the same author, is a summary of some kind of network design published in three papers in Acta Electronica Sinica (cited as Chinese Journal of Electronics in the article). One of these papers has 75 citations on GScholar, but many of those are self-citations and none of the citing papers has had any measurable impact, as far as I can tell. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And if I may, I'd like to nominate Resolution Mapping of SID, Resolution Mapping of AID and all the redirects to this page at the same time. If the main topic is not notable, neither are those. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable self promotion. Agree that other 8 redirects that point to this one should also go if this one is deleted as they are all subsets of the article.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  13:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless author can demonstrate the concept has gained significant attention from independent parties. The Blue Canoe  13:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy Delete – Appears to be a genuine research project that has attracted some attention in the field, but this is way too technical for Wikipedia. Theoretical and better left to the technical journals. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sorry, I !voted before looking at the history of this article. Now I'm a bit concerned whether it is being given a fair chance. In (this dif) reduced the original 4500-char article to a two-sentence stub, on the grounds that it was original research. This was about three hours after article creation. By about an hour later,  had merged the technical details from the other articles and proposed it all for deletion. It was never tagged for notability, the author was given no chance to improve it, and as it stands the technical details are incomprehensible. Hence my !vote that it was too technical. But the overview wasn't too technical, and if I had seen that I would have !voted differently. I still think it's a delete, since there is no evidence of impact in the field of pervasive network architectures. The author may not have realized that we require cites from third-party reliable sources. Many new editors don't, especially academics. So what I would like to propose it that the overview be restored and the author notified that we need evidence for notability, with an explanation of what notability means on Wikipedia. I'd also like to ask the closer not to delete this too soon. At least not until the author has been given some more time to improve it. Right now I'm leaning toward changing my !vote to userfy. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that edit by . I restored the missing content (without the overt promotion of the topic), but it don't find this address my concern. I'm fine with userfication instead of deletion. (And a merger would have to be done anyway; it's no use having ~8 articles all discussing the same research project.) Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So I will change my !vote to userfy. If that is the outcome, I will volunteer to explain our notability and OR policies to the author. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the editor created 8 articles using the same 3 sources regardless of what was in the articles and it really is a pile of original research. Happy to support userfication.  Flat Out   let's discuss it  21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:08, 9 March 2015 (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.