Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complex adaptive communication network

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. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complex adaptive communication network

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

Is this a valid article in its own right or a fork of others such as complex adaptive system and complex system? I get the feeling it is just a vehicle for Muaz Niazi to promote his own papers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger,

I am actually desperately trying to create a page (my first ever on Wiki) on a newly emerging area of research. I believe you wrongfully considered that I have perhaps only created the page for advertisement of my papers. As a matter of fact, I only added those papers since when I first created the page, you added the deletion notice so I basically added references hoping that it would address the problems that you were noticing (This being the first time I am adding a new Wiki page as far as I can recall). While I have only right now started adding material to this page, my articles are not the only papers in this domain. A large number of people have been developing this area recently and I shall hopefully get to add their articles in due time. Can you please kindly assist me in what I should do to make a valid case for a Wiki page as this area of complex adaptive networks is a separate area and definitely needs a separate focus and attention. Thanks for your time. Let me know if you agree/disagree with this. If there is some other way this area can be addressed, I shall be happy to delete this page and assist in it. Thanks.

Warm regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that comment because the fact that there are numerous Journal and conference papers on this area shows the area is well-developed. If you are conversant with Academic Journal publishing, it takes several years before a single academic paper gets from initial work to publication in any Journal of high standing. Please disprove me if you have any solid evidence to contradict this statement. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a notable subject for an article. Treating communication networks as complex adaptive systems has a long history. One person writing papers on an example of a CAS does not an article make - delete. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As mentioned by the other reviewer, it has long history and lot of people have written on this topic and the article no longer has links to one person's papers. It has been massively edited and mentioned those numerous links to different authors' papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what other reviewer you are talking about? user Snowded did not see this topic as notable, just pointed out that complex adaptive system had a history, not this one. It already has an article (which needs work too). I have to admit I had about 35 years experience in computer networks, but could not follow complex adaptive communication network. The topic is not even defined as per lead section guidelines. It just starts out talking about complex adaptive systems in general, stating an odd definition twice? The "nonliniarly" moniker for example is unusual: what communication networks would be considered "linear" then? Then it comes up with the term CACOONS, which sort of sounds like an acronym but is never expanded or given a reference. Is it in some non-English language? Is the article supposed to be about the networks themselves or models or simulations of them? And of course obvious "complex adaptive communication networks" would be the work of Paul Baran in the 1960s and the ARPANET, but these are not mentioned.

Much of it reads like a research proposal. That is not how articles are written on an encyclopedia, one of which Wikipedia is supposed to be. For example, never say "nowadays" "recently" or "several years for now" or advertise future publications or give opinions about WIkipedia in articles. They are supposed to describe the named topic, not be essays making an argument about them. "Current state" articles belong in academic or "newsy" publications. Many other style errors, such as using refs as subjects of sentences, an inline link, few wikilinks, etc. I would suggest moving it into a "sandbox" under your user page and taking some time familiarizing yourself with the policies and style guidelines used on Wikipedia. The "Did you know" articles on the front page are ones that are new but pass some level of review. Even better are the "featured" articles on the front page. Or go to a related project and find the ones rated "good" for example. W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Nowicki, first of all, thank you so much for the detailed comment. As I had noted earlier, I am actually quite happy with the delete as long as there is an article which addresses this exact area (intersection of cas and communication networks). While I am quite comfortable with networks and cas, as I mentioned this is my first page on wikipedia so I guess I was not quite sure exactly how to structure it according to wiki guidelines so appreciate the guidance. Secondly, the point I am trying to make is not that cas are new or that any communication network is nonlinear, which it of course is, the point is that previous approaches to modeling networks do not focus on cas, properties of which, we are only just learning about(as in work which has appeared only perhaps in the last two decades such as Stanislaw Ulam, Hofstadter, Holland et al. and others related to the Santa Fe Institute and the New England Complex Systems Institute). I am surprised how you can say cas (which is actually a relatively new modeling approach) can be said to have been used in ARPANET and Paul Baran's work on packets. Would you kindly mention some papers from the 60's which have *applied* the "cas" approach to communication networks? I would actually be truly happy if there were any and would love to read them as that would be like a re-definition of the history of cas modeling. To the best of my knowledge, while cas themselves (such as living systems, cells, multi-cellular organisms etc) have been here for millions of years on earth, only recently research has been conducted on performing explicit modeling of cas. And the key modeling approaches include using agent-based modeling and complex network analysis (See Mitchell's treatise Complexity: A guided tour). As such if there are any editorial problems, (arguably this being my first experience with wiki page-creation), I guess with your experience in networks, you can help merge/move/title/edit this material to a separate page, deleting this one, as needed and I would be perfectly happy. Thanks again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Wikipedia articles are about concepts, and we try to avoid neologisms. Baran and Kleinrock certainly had models of communication networks in the 1960s, and debating if they are "complex" or "adaptive" depends on your definition. They were for their time. In academia it might be popular to coin new terms and acronyms to make it sound like a new field is being invented. Sometimes the terms catch on beyond a narrow audience. I have no idea if these are each worth of articles, but the burden of proof is on the proposer of the new article to make the distinction clear to readers who are not familiar with the subject. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2011 (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.