Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital twin

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 keep. Tone 16:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital twin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A neologism that is covered by the existing computer simulation article. If the Azure Digital Twin is notable in its own right, it would be best to start an article for it with a clean sheet. 1292simon (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what a horrific pile of buzzword-driven bullshit. That said, it's buzzword-driven bullshit that seems to be talked about a lot, and is different from computer simulation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per power~enwiki. Gets 14,300+ hits on Google Scholar. Could probably be stubbified or start-ified if kept—the lengthy catalog of examples doesn't seem super helpful, and the lede needs to be much more concise. If this is kept, I'd happily be pinged to help out with an overhaul. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently Digital Twin is a very distinct concept to mean complete virtualization of a physical asset. There is no analog to the exact concept of a Digital Twin in 2020, and it's used in many industries to mean exactly as it is explained in the Digital Twin wiki page. For example, The Smart Water Network Forum (SWAN) defines Digital Twin for the water industry by diagram, video training, and blog at at https://www.swan-forum.com/digital-twin-h2o-work-group/, so its not just an Azure concept as the user cites above. Please remove the delete request label from the top of the article as it distracted me, and would confuse a user not already familiar with the concept as to why on earth anyone would want to delete such a key concept today. 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtforme (talk • contribs) — Dtforme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep As above google brings up substantial hits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough. Could someone please take this article under their wing and fix it up? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Web of Science, I found 1,464 citations for this concept. Paul H. (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (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.