Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meca Sapiens


 * 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. Tone 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Meca Sapiens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page relates to a non-notable machine learning architecture. Article shows signs of significant WP:SYNTH and many of the sources fail verification with regard to saying anything actually about this topic. No real indications of WP:SIGCOV but a big WP:COI issue (which is how this article came to my attention.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I created a COI notice here, which may be of interest to this discussion. I would like to otherwise recuse myself from the vote. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it has the sources and references, keep it! Perf115 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It does not have any references that independently confer notability from what I could identify. That's why I nominated it for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarifying none of the references independent of those accredited to the author of the architecture and the wikipedia page that I can access make any mention of Meca Sapiens at all. In fact none of the accessible references even mention the word "Meca". Furthermore more than half the references were published long before the architecture was conceived. Instead the entire article is a work of WP:SYNTH where the author, likely the designer of the architecture, has made statements about various concepts and cognitive theories, provided those references that mention the concepts he's remarking on, and then related his architecture to those concepts. This is what I meant by WP:SYNTH. There's nothing in the article to suggest this particular machine learning architecture is in any way notable; furthermore my attempts to ascertain any sort of coverage that meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG came up entirely empty. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete It's another J.E. Tardy. COI and SPA problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 January 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.