Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic data entry

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. J04n(talk page) 12:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organic data entry

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

No indication of significance; creator has not addressed tagged issues. —swpb^T 19:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I wrote this on the article talk page, but repeat it here.
I am new to this process. Today, I have described Organic data entry more in depth. The method has parallels to organic data search, which I have pointed out in the article.
The methodology exists and is in daily use. It is not all new, but in an early stage of usage. One reference in the article is to a patent applications, which proves the methodology existanse.
A key here is that one can use ODE to enter complex data strings from the most simple input devices as SMS/messaging systems. This has caught interest by scientists, and I would expect more references soon from these.
Thanks, —norchris^T 22:15, 23 May 2016 (GMT+1)
- This isn't about the merits of the subject. People are asking a very simple and straightforward question with these tags and notices: Where, outwith Wikipedia, have people, not the subject's inventors, documented it in depth? Where is the knowledge already written down and published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? Books. Papers. Articles. And so forth. Please point to them. Everything must be verifiable. Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting the heretofore undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Norchris: Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Just a quick note of clarification. Part of the way Wikipedia is able to function as a collaborative encyclopedia is that we have strict rules about covering only what has been covered already by reliable sources. If books, magazines, high-quality websites, etc. haven't written about it in some depth, it's not fit for Wikipedia yet. The existence of things or a contributor saying it's important just isn't sufficient. If you want to learn more about these policies, which can be a hassle at first but are quite important, see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look to be significant coverage in reliable sources yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, if norchris feels there are sufficient sources out there but does not yet have them, I wouldn't be opposed to Userfying. (Norchris, that would mean the content would still be on Wikipedia, but as a subpage of your userpage rather than a normal article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no reliable secondary sources at all so agree with nom. DeVerm (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article makes nothing for the needed solid independent notability and there's absolutely nothing minimally convincing. SwisterTwister talk 08:06, 6 June 2016 (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.