Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Harvesting


 * 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 no consensus. Yunshui 雲 水 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Information Harvesting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be original research about a product which is not notable. PROD was endorsed by and removed by.  SITH   (talk)   14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment removed prod because I doubt it's OR but  it needed a more comprehensive check for references in the field  than I could do.     DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I originally created this article but I'm not going to advocate strongly now for its being kept. This is an old article about an even older product. It seemed somewhat notable when I originally created this article, but as the product has receded further into the past, it seems less so now. I haven't edited this article in 13 years; if others who have edited it more recently wish to add to the discussion I may participate in this discussion. But I'm not going to be the primary advocate for keeping it. Dash77 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on 's expertise as a researcher, I'm willing to hear what was said about it. Once notable, a thing is always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree and this is exactly why I'm not going to be a strong advocate to keep the article. Once something is notable I agree that it is always notable. However I created this article early in my 'career' as a Wikipedian, when I wasn't as familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines as I am now, so my having created the article is not strong evidence for it ever having been notable. I haven't touched the article since. I understand that multiple references from multiple sources are needed to establish notability. I was aware of the one reference that provided but am not aware of any others as yet, so I'm not sure on whether this product is now or was ever notable. I'll also be interested in any further thoughts that  has. Dash77 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also add that I recall that Ralphe Wiggins, the creator of this product, had an article in the May 1992 issue of AI Expert entitled 'Docking a truck: A genetic fuzzy approach'. That was how I originally learned of Wiggins' work. However I don't recall whether the AI Expert article mentioned Information Harvesting or not, and I can't find a PDF of the article online. Even AI Expert itself, which was an important AI publication in its era, doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article. Dash77 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I added the old AI Expert reference to the article but I'm not sure if that is enough to establish notability. I would hope for a bit more in terms of references but can't find much out there. Dash77 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:59, 17 January 2020 (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.