Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Amulet

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. Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data Amulet

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

Whether this is a quantum data storage system or some kind of post-modern artwork, it fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources. Sourced only to three papers by Willard G. Van De Bogart, with no wider Google noise for "Data Amulet", "Solid Matter Hard Drive" or "Solid Matter Quantum Hard Drive". McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had a weird sense of deja vu since I thought that I had prodded this article but apparently not. Per nom, sourced only to primary sources. shoy (reactions) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this date, there is no press for yet for Scot Forshaw and Willard Van De Bogart's paper which will be presented at an interdisciplinary conference in Shangai next month. (http://www.detao-node.com/conf/consciousness-reframed/) However, the physical representation of a data amulet as Data Amulet Art exists now and I feel it should be included in Wikipedia. The biggest reason is to start with the artwork and then we can begin to translate into layman's terms what this AI system does. In short, this is only the beginning. While highly technical, here is a source on this latest technology: http://web.mit.edu/6.115/www/amulet/Bitmap.htm (Did I add those links correctly?) Colleenpridemore (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not pass WP:GNG and has only primary sources. This is clearly a case of WP:RECENTISM and the article creator should read WP:What Wikipedia is not before creating more articles. freshacconci talk to me 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for a stand alone article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 7 October 2015 (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.