Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous command and control

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:13Z

[edit] Ubiquitous command and control

Ubiquitous command and control (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

UC2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Minor conceptual model - no evidence of wider adoption by either the academic or C&C community. All references supplied by authors of concept. Fredrick day 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. This is a really complete, detailed, informative, and well-formatted article. My very soul cries out at the prospect of deleting an article of this caliber. However... it does seem to based on a single paper submitted in 1999. There are many many academic papers submitted every year... I would figure that, since so much went into the writing of the article, that the article creator would have included links to second parties taking this up, if there were any such links. I can't see keeping the article. It's not quite original research, since the paper does exist. But with no shown impact, I can't see keeping the article. Herostratus 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is evident that a lot of work has been put into this article. But that doesn't mean it meets notability guidelines. Nothing in this jargon-laden article establishes its significance or notability. And there is good reason to be suspicious because it does not appear to have ever been published, much less published in a peer-reviewed journal. Rather, it was presented once at a conference, and in all fairness to the author I doubt many people have heard or taken notice of the paper. Allon Fambrizzi 00:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete, with regrets. Like the others, I believe a lot of work has gone into this article. I hate to see so much good work wasted, but the subject simply doesn't meet notability standards, and there aren't enough independent sources. Now if we could get this editor to work on some truly notable sunjects, Wikipedia would be the better for it. Realkyhick 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately. I've been trying to come up with ways to salvage this article but I can't think of any. It is extremely well-written and deleting it would be a pity but I share the sentiment, that it basically doesn't meet WP:N. The best course of action, in my humble opinion, would be to notify the author and ask him to put the article somewhere more appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fairly strongly. You mean that this sort of complete bollocks has infected someone's military? I blame PowerPoint, the death of literacy.

  Unlike some of the editors above, I am underwhelmed by this sort of writing. I agree that it does seem to represent a lot of work, and share the sentiment that it's a shame to delete something that effort has been invested in. But, having read through the whole thing, I feel like I know nothing that I didn't know at the beginning. It seemed platitudinous, tautological, and seeking to camouflage its emptiness with inappropriate abstractions. The only military application I could imagine for this sort of prose would be to torment unlawful combatants with, but that would be a war crime. In the end, this article really isn't about anything. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Length and quality of prose do not an article make. There's a lot written here but it amounts to very little reliable information, and I have to agree with Smerdis of Tlön - after wasting the time going through this article, there's really nothing there to get worked up about. Anyway, delete for failing any number of policies, WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:V, take your pick. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:OR.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, with regrets. Well-written article, but doesn't meet WP:N and WP:OR. Sr13 (T|C) 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unrescuable and unrewritable - any genuine sources are going to be secret in any event. For I think the first time, I agree 100% with Smerdis of Tlon; 10,000 words of WP:BOLLOCKS is worse than a five line "look at me" speedy candidate. This is nothing more than someone expounding their pet theory - it all appears to have been lifted from two academic papers (what the hell kind of title is "A Dialectic for Network Centric Warfare", anyway) and the creator (User:Scholzj) is also the writer of one of the papers, so it's probably WP:OR in any case. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As you'll see from my contributions I never vote 'delete' so this is probably my first 'delete' vote. I have no idea what the article is about therefore I can't acceot that it should stay. Xanucia 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's a great article, relatively well referenced, informative and well written, with it's notability shown by its academic status. Cloveoil 05:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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.