Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volumetric Site Analysis

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. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volumetric Site Analysis

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

~~Blatant Original research~~ non-notable theory that serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable author, Michele Leidi.I think When their "Volumetric Site Analysis" becomes notable, someone with no WP:COI, who knows how to write an encyclopedic articles will write about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's not really original reasearch, rather WP:PROFRINGE: giving undue weight to ideas with few and non-influential promoters, if any. The only relevant search-engine hit that I got was Leidi's article. Tigraan (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one video, one paper, one SPA contributor. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article was re-edited. It covers notable original research developed at a notable institution that was submitted and accepted in several peer-reviewed independent scientific journals/conferences as illustrated by the following reliable sources:[1],[2],[3],[4]. If still not sufficient the article should be merged into Site Analysis. NextWriter (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)— NextWriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All that your links prove is that Leidi has published papers (including a thesis). The publishers might or might not be legit, I did not check but it does not matter: none of them points to secondary sources that discuss the impact those papers had on the field. Most researchers over 30 will have a PhD thesis and a dozen of articles; yet most of them, and most of their research, are non-notable. Tigraan (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FRINGE and WP:OR Antigng (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fabulist bullshit from the first sentence: "...a design technique for the conceptualization of architecture in the urban context..." Smacketh the big red button labeled "EASY". Pax 08:06, 14 March 2015 (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.