Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Sensor Networks

Body Sensor Networks

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

non notable neologism. All references are works written or partially written by the creator of the term. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Body area network. If anything is salvageable merge it in. AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Prof Guang-Zhong has 364 citations (listed by Google Scholarly articles) for BSN, not to mention his Springer book of that name; but he's not the only one, as author Lo is cited by 90 papers and author Baldus on same topic is cited by 65 papers. Term BSN is also in use in paper BSN for Mobile Health Monitoring: Val Jones, Valerie Gay, Peter Leijdekkers for example; and at BSN: Benny, Lo et al (the Prof is a co-author on this last one, probably by his students). There is also a BSN Contest. There's lots more. Sigh. By the way, BSN workshops were held annually from 2006 (not sure if one happened this year), so the neologism is not very new any more. I think we're going to have to accept that BSN is here to stay, even if it is basically a Body area network. I'm not against a redirect, but I doubt deletion is a sensible option, it'll only come back. Actually "sensor" is a clearer term than "area": redirect BAN to BSN? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them last August[1], using this discussion as a guide following a stale 2007 merge tag[2]. Body Area Network is currently the better article in my opinion, although it still needs work.AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Need to attempt to finish the merge discussion before talking about deletion. I've reopened discussion. --Kvng (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was finished. The discussion should really be about whether to split the article as the merged version is the status quo now. AIRcorn (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIRcorn, could you explain what you mean by 'split' here? What in your view should we probably be doing now, and why? I feel I may have missed something.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off I admit to knowing virtually nothing about the topic. It is on my watchlist because I was working through the old merge tags a year ago and this had one from 2007. I read the discussion and there was consensus to merge into BAN so I did so. I don't think there was much to take across so it was more a redirect. My reply above is to Kvng who reopened the discussion and suggested we finish discussing it. I feel that if something has a merge tag on it for three years and during that time only two editors commented suggesting a merge into BAN there is little point in reopening the discussion. Maybe split was the wrong word, but I do feel the merge discussion is well and truly stale and a different discussion should be opened, which I guess in a way this AFD is doing. AIRcorn (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]