- 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. The reference noted by Andrew D. was not a valid link. Should additional references become available, I would be willing to review this close.
Nakon 06:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Additional references were provided and I am overturning my close to a No Consensus. Nakon 16:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Product data record
- Product data record ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, although this is an area I'm not well-educated in. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so hopefully it can now be resolved - adiscussion is well overdue. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Cobaltbluetony tagged it, and Andrew Davidson removed prod although no reason was given for removal (maybe it would have convinced me). Boleyn ( talk) 07:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I looked at GBooks and GScholar, but the few hits seem generic, and not sufficient to establish notability as a widespread technical or academic term. Through like the nom, this is not my field of expertise. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The page already contains several sources indicating notability. Here's another. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- leaning delete It's possible this is the first case where a new term was pushed out by making an article on it in Wikipedia. The only book hits, from 2012 and 2014, quote our definition exactly; by contrast, every reference or other link in the article is dead. Web links tend to trace back to kalypso.com, which it does not surprise me to learn is one of the targets of the dead links. I'm not convinced that this is a term-of-art. Mangoe ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 31 March 2015 (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.
- 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. The reference noted by Andrew D. was not a valid link. Should additional references become available, I would be willing to review this close.
Nakon 06:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Additional references were provided and I am overturning my close to a No Consensus. Nakon 16:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Product data record
- Product data record ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, although this is an area I'm not well-educated in. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so hopefully it can now be resolved - adiscussion is well overdue. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Cobaltbluetony tagged it, and Andrew Davidson removed prod although no reason was given for removal (maybe it would have convinced me). Boleyn ( talk) 07:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I looked at GBooks and GScholar, but the few hits seem generic, and not sufficient to establish notability as a widespread technical or academic term. Through like the nom, this is not my field of expertise. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The page already contains several sources indicating notability. Here's another. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- leaning delete It's possible this is the first case where a new term was pushed out by making an article on it in Wikipedia. The only book hits, from 2012 and 2014, quote our definition exactly; by contrast, every reference or other link in the article is dead. Web links tend to trace back to kalypso.com, which it does not surprise me to learn is one of the targets of the dead links. I'm not convinced that this is a term-of-art. Mangoe ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:53, 31 March 2015 (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.