Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Data Resource
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. There is no consensus to keep this in any format, whether standalone or merged. If someone wants to make redirects, feel free. I don't know the subject well enough to know if they are plausible search terms. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Data Resource[edit]
- Digital Data Resource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to be a relatively obscure neologism. I couldn't find any sources that used this term in this way, and none are included in the articles.
Also included in this nomination:
- Structured Data Resource
- Unstructured Data Resource BradV 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article is a muddled waffle of neologisms with little context. --neon white talk 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Data Reference Model, since the information would only have any semblance of sense within that context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No opinion on merger, but it seems obvious that some kind of context is needed to make this read like anything other than utterly vacuous and abstract tautology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect to Data Reference Model. I don't like merging unsourced material particularly when it is so unclear. Smile a While (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can find this term being used in published literature in 1993. Take a look at books.google and scholar.google for use of this term in both published books and in journal articles. --Oldak Quill 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this as barely a WP:DICTDEF, and not sourced at that. No hits in Google News / News Archive to establish notability, which isn't asserted in the article anyway. Frank | talk 17:58, 17 June 2008 (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.