Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing (2nd nomination)

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 Result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An excessively detailed and badly sourced article on a single research project of unclear significance. The two main papers by J. Davis on this research have, respectively, 10 and 8 citations in Google scholar (discounting the many papers listed by GS that predate these two), quite low numbers for this area, and the papers that cite it do not seem to be surveys of a type that we could use as an appropriate secondary source. (Note that what appears to be a relevant source, a paper from a group at U. Texas entitled "The FAST methodology for high-speed SoC/computer simulation", is actually about a completely different project with a similar name and only happens to cite this project incidentally and trivially.) This article was deleted by an AfD in 2007, the deletion decision was upheld in a DRV, and three months later it was created again, still inadequately sourced. The original deletion nomination also observed that excessive amounts of text were copied from copyrighted sources; I haven't checked carefully whether that's still true, but given the way it's worded it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. An alternative to deletion would be to stub this down to something that can be documented entirely from secondary sources, but I haven't found any secondary sources that would be usable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Indeed, much of this article appear to be copied from Davis' Ph.D. thesis. For instance, all but the first three words of the lede paragraph are from page v of the thesis, the next section "Project Overview" is a lightly edited copy of figures and text from pages 16–18 of the thesis, and the next section after that "Architecture Overview" is a lightly edited copy of figures and text from pages 31–33 of the thesis. Given that I suspect the copyright owner (Davis) to be the same person who added this text here, it may not be a speedily deletable copyright violation, but I think it is still problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To err on the safe side I would speedy delete as copyvio. Just because the same man wrote the two doesn't mean that his thesis, if published, won't become property of the publishing journal and thus create a potential problem. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a univeristy research project, it's place is in a scientific journal not an encyclopedia, it has no real world usage or acceptance and probably never will. It is inevitable that the author of this page is part of the university research team, I can't guess at the reason it is placed here, but as a research scientist myself I couldn't imagine putting years of my work into a public ___domain article - unless the project has no real world value and it is little more than an advert for the author. I will assume it is a good faith bad idea, that doesnt' make it a speedy, but it is an obvious delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.