Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooperative-based graph clustering

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative-based graph clustering

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

Fails notability - an obscure (single-researcher) subtopic of clustering. The article is based on single reference (A. Ibrahim, Derek Rayside, R. Kashef (2014). "Cooperative Based Software Clustering on Dependency Graphs". IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Toronto, Canada.) with 0 citations on Google Scholar. Some of the other references are outright incorrect. The Bürger reference does not appear to mention Cooperative-based graph based clustering at all, for example. Which is not surprising, because these sources predate the Ibrahim publication... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text appears to be largely copied from an unpublished and unsourced paper by the same name, by Ahmed Ibrahim of the University of Waterloo. It is probably not a copyvio because that name matches the name of the article's creator, but it is also not a notable piece of research, and anyway Wikipedia is the wrong place for publishing one's research. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this looks like a journal report instead of a solid encyclopedia article and there's also been noticeably ample time and space to improve it and that hasn't happened. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, above. Although the "article formatting" is not a reason to delete per se, it is a good indication that a primary source was copied, and I do not see any secondary sources out there. Tigraan (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For this to be noteworthy, this topic should have decent coverage in independent secondary sources. I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that strongly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2016 (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.