Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soft computing


 * 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 Moved to draft space..  Sandstein  09:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Soft computing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a confusing essay about an unclear and poorly-defined subject. It seems that many of the sources don't support the content, and I also had to remove several glaring copyright violations. It's written as a pedagogical essay, not an encyclopedia article, which makes it difficult to tell if the sources that it does have are all talking about the same thing or are using the term "soft computing" to describe related but different concepts, so that notability is sketchy at best. But even being generous, it's clear that the content is so awful that retaining it would impede writing an actual article on the subject. Reyk YO! 09:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 09:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Deletion is not cleanup. Subject is notable. It even has its own journals. It is taught as a subject on many Computer Science courses, e.g . The page passes GNG despite genuine issues with the quality of the article. Article is not poor enough to merit WP:TNT, so should be kept. I think it is stub class though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that it should be kept, but not the Main: namespace. It's had ~17-18 years to be cleaned up and, if cleanup isn't happening even with notional no deadlines, that reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. WP:ATT likely precludes deletion here, though there are likely some revision deletions from the prior copyright violations identified by that need to occur. People too often forget about draftification as outcome at AfD in that they think it passes WP:GNG, there's only a "keep" outcome. Frankly, I can't see how we should allow this article to be kept; it's had 17-18 years and cleanup isn't happening, which, as I say, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Doug Mehus  T · C  03:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am content with draftify as an outcome here, although this is by far not the worst page I have seen. I prefer keep, but draftify is a good option if it breaks a deadlock. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The subject is related to Fuzzy logic, but different. It is well established; there is even an Applied Soft Computing journal . Note the existence of this page on other languages. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify per nom. It's an interesting topic, but as written, this fails WP:GNG we can't just make vague pointers at a policy saying "deletion is not cleanup." Even though we notionally have no deadlines, if cleanup is not happening, that's highly problematic in that it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. As a future library technician, I would not endorse this article in its current form. I don't endorse deletion, though, because it's an interesting topic. But, at present, it cannot exist in the Main: namespace that is indexed by Google. Doug Mehus T · C  02:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting 's removal of copyright violations, if (and assuming it will) this article closes as draftify, closing administrator should suppress (hide) the earlier diffs containing the copyright violations (if not already done). Doug Mehus T · C  02:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or draftify per above. Not bad enough for TNT. I don't think it fails GNG as is because GNG is based on the sources that exist and not those currently cited in the article.  buidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 05:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.