Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traceless Biometrics


 * 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. For future reference "speedy" keeps are only for a few basic reasons. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Traceless Biometrics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article seems to be a combination of WP:OR and POV assertions ("Biometrics solution should be completely noninvasive with regard to personal privacy. Further, we hold that if these traceless biometric systems (TBS) are used..."). Probable WP:COI issues as well (article creator seems to be promoting the term "traceless biometrics" and appears to the founder of a company using the same term). A previously declined prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep &mdash; The subject of the article clearly exists. If you have problems with how it is written, deletion is absolutely not the proper solution.  If you're not interested in fixing it yourself, then leave it alone so others can.  Don't just be lazy and try to delete it outright.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the subject actually exists except as a neologism coined by this company. Since I am, as you suggest, lazy, I prefer to exert my infrequent and feeble efforts where I see some chance of results. Thanks for your comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it *does not* exist beyond a concept invented and pushed by one person, I can only assume Kurt votes "it clearly exists" without checking. it's a technical version of "stuff we made up in school", the concept is largely nonsense and is not supported or referenced or discussed by any mainstream sources in this area. the article itself is mainly coat racking about biometrics generally - it actually has no reliable sources about the concept itself and should be deleted on that basis alone. --129.11.76.230 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Original research, coatrack. Kurt clearly exists as well, but he clearly has trouble understanding WP:SK. This is not a speedy keep by any means, and "it clearly exists" is not a valid rationale. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even worse, some of the references are other Wikipedia articles. Can't do that, I'm afraid. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article is unsupported by books or scholarly articles. It is based on this patent application and nowhere else...unnotable neologism created for a new invention that has not gained much attention. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article is now unsourced, earlier versions pointed to a non-notable neologism with some pretty blatant promotion. Review of the patent application further confirms that it is, as User:Peripitus points, "a new invention that has not gained much attention."  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - I removed all of the references from the article - this is all documented in the edit summaries. Broadly, all of the references were a) self-published b) other wikipedia articles or c) sourced related to issues around the use of biometrics in the generic sense - material that is already covered in extensive detail in other articles. They have no bearing on this particular standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I know, I saw the edit history too. However, for future reference, I'd rather see editors note that the references are bad rather than removing the sources altogether.  Although I agree that they do not supply the article with actual references, a simple note would have done the trick.  Also, I think this AfD would work better if you signed in to your Wikipedia account or created one.  Moves like this creates certain problems in AfD and it's nice to be able to leave messages, etc. to the user (rather than to the next person who picks up this IP).  Thanks.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are pretty much wrong on everything. - first, normal editing of article is a) permitted and b) expected during AFD. I have cleaned-up the article so it confirms to the MOS and our other policies on the use of sourcing etc. This is normal and permissible. A note to say "this should not be included" is redundant, editors are encouraged to be bold and perform normal editorial activities as required. I don't have an account, I don't plan to get an account. This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit - and I am editing it. If you have a problem with that - I suggest you lobby to change core policy. If you have any problems with my edits or feel they are in error, I suggest you outline those problems on the article talkpage. I have considered all of my edits carefully and can defend and explain all of them. So your "for future reference" is incorrect and your suggestion is against all core policies and normal editing practices. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being unsourced is not a valid reason to delete. First, sources aren't even necessary anyway, except for direct quotations or for claims that are actually being challenged.  Second, instead of deleting the article, perhaps it would be more constructive to go out and find sources yourself if you want them so bad, or leave it be so that others can.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no sources for this - it's a neologism and a piece of original research by one person. If you are going to make statements about articles at AFD - surely, YOU need to at least make the effort to do some basic research about the article and the subject under discussion. I've had a look at your AFD history and you seem to use this "it exists" arguments all the time - even when it has been demonstrated that the subject does not exist or is a hoax. Cutting and pasting the same keep vote into AFDs when you are too lazy to actually read the article and assess the sources is, in my mind, disruptive and you should be blocked for such actions - it's simply a form of trolling. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't make assumptions about what I've already done or my motives, especially when (as in this case) they're blatantly false. Try again, troll.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "Nuh-uh" defense. While most people might think that went out with 1st grade recess, Kurt has made it his Wikipedia specialty. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- as per WP:SNOW -- woah woah woah did anyone hre actually look for any sources? I found eight sources referencing the term "Tracless Biometrics" as it is used in this context. IT wasnt even that hard:         -- and that's just a smlal cross-section of the sources I found covering this topic. I dont understand how all of you people can be so gungho about killing this article when you didnt even look at the sources it has! If we did this to all articles, we woldnt have any articles since no article starts out as a WP:GA the moment it is created. C'mon, folks!!! Smith Jones (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but I think that wikirage.com might not be considered a reliable source, because, you know, it just tracks what's active on Wikipedia at any given time. Ditto for the video links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats two links. I posted 8. Threes no way you can say that ALL of them re invalid jus tbecause two of them arent completely perfect. Smith Jones (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to illustrate that you seem to have no understanding of WP:RS so that other editors don't need to their waste their time looking at the links you posted. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one, to biometrics.gov, doesn't use the term "Tracless Biometrics" or even "Traceless Biometrics" which this article's supposed to be about. Unconvincing. And if you want us to link to them, don't use ref. tags unless you're adding a reflist at the bottom. . .dave souza, talk 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sources were all complete junk - one of the ones he added to the article was an empty search box, another was to wikirage.com. All junk, all removed. --129.11.76.215 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and WP:NEO. -- Chet B. Long Talk / ARK 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable neologism . . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, per nom and WP:NEO. The image on the page seems to have a copyright, trademark, and a company name on it too. Verbal   chat  12:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist for Smith Jones
These references were added by Smith Jones above; please note the discussion. None of these seem to be a good source. Verbal  chat  12:48, 5 August 2008 (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.