Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microstructure informatics


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Microstructure informatics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no information to show that this is an actual field, instead of being occasionally used in a title-  DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  03:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - Here are a couple other sources that establish notability:, . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 December 2013
 * One of those is a book, but the other is not a WP:RS. -- 101.119.14.28 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to count/asses the two references in the article. ~KvnG 03:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the references in the article doesn't appear to mention the term "microstructure informatics" at all. -- 101.119.14.197 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The title is not often used, and the "application of computer science and information technology in the field of materials science and engineering" is almost always called something else. In fact, the term seems to only be used by the team of SR Kalidindi and AA Salem, so WP:NEO applies. The content of this article is also not worth keeping, being mostly a shopping list of IT topics (not necessarily related to engineering microstructures). The article was created by an SPA, possibly with a WP:COI. -- 101.119.14.28 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what other titles this topic might go by? ~KvnG 03:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that most "applications of computer science and information technology in the field of materials science and engineering" have nothing to do with microstructures. Computational fluid dynamics, for example, is one of many "applications of computer science and information technology in the field of materials science and engineering." And I see the article, but I don't believe there's an actual topic here, just a WP:NEO used by two people. -- 101.119.14.197 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Ten GScholar hits, one legitimate GBook hit (published this year): at very best this is WP:TOOSOON. This double score buzzword bingo phrase clearly lacks traction at this time. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough sources. Vague. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete This looks to be a research program by Kalidindi, et. al. to characterize microstructure images by spatial statistics, such as higher-order correlations, similar to what is done in texture analysis. Then they propose to use these spatial statistics to catalog and index microstructures in a database for lookup and analysis. Its a nice idea, but is only one particular approach to characterizing microstructures and one that does not seem to have caught on yet outside of their research group. The article itself has an inappropriately expansive, general definition regarding informatics and materials engineering, of which microstructure informatics would only be a specialized component. I think one could probably write a notable article about classification of microstructures and possibly informatics issues. But this article, with its bad definitions and undue weight given to a single approach, is not that article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2013 (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.