Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Networking
- 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, pretty obvious OR. GlassCobra 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Visual Networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I read the article three times and I still don't know what Visual Networking is. I am, however, pretty certain that this article is almost completely original research. CIreland (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't think the proposer's own lack of comprehension for the subject is sufficient to warrant the article's deletion. Although unsourced and generally untidy, I am sure that sources could be found for it (quick google search returns some valid referencing material). Although it looks like it has been copied from somewhere (from a quick glance), it still needs a tidy up of prose and layout, with references being a must. The article looks valid to me, and although I have no knowledge of the subject, can't see a valid reason to delete it. It's only had a week - if in a few weeks nothing has changed with no references added or notability of the subject asserted, then by all means deletion might be warranted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay, and smells very much like a copyvio, and is POV regardless. The term is most often seen as an entry point to visualization for network analysis, or outside computing, for making network charts (e.g. company-to-company relationships). I am not finding a good primary source for this topic as "visualized" by the creator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This reads like a college writing assignment or corporate presentation. It's all padding, written in theoretical terms and with no actual information. The subject's notability is also highly questionable: search engine searches for the phrase return unrelated results. I suspect this subject may have been made up by the author.