Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zigzag code

Zigzag code

Looks like original research DimaG (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not pure WP:OR, the paper it cites is from 1999 and at least one other research paper (with no authors in common) was written on the subject in 2005 [1]. I cite that one because it is definitely the same meaning of the phrase "zigzag code"; I see a number of other papers which I think are related but I am not yet sure. No !vote yet because I am not convinced either way of notability, but it definitely ain't OR. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar finds 138 articles mentioning zigzag codes, 38 of them with the phrase in the title. The paper cited by the stub here has 50 citations. I think this is more than sufficient to provide the multiple reliable sources needed for a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amplifying to keep or merge and redirect to appropriate article on error-coding, per David Eppstein. I had a feeling based on some initial Googling that it was a notable (though highly specialized) topic, but I didn't feel I'd done enough research to verify either way. Thanks for doing the legwork! I'm convinced now that it's notable. Not sure it needs its own article (would need a subject matter expert to tell us that) but the content should not be deleted. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short article to error-correcting code. Notable engineering topic. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not WP:NOR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In haste to create a string of AFD nominations, the nominator seems to have overlooked that the topic was referenced to an IEEE journal. I wonder what about it "looks like original research." --C S (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]