Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identifier of the point

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. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, it's unanimous. Sandstein 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifier of the point

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

Per WP:NOTNEO, WP:PROMO ― Padenton|✉ 01:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 01:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 01:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is content to be in an article ( it's able to be referenced from reliable source) but it isn't notable so while this content could be in an article, it isn't really the subject of its own article. a news search didn't turn up any secondaries. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although the content is not notable in the atricle referenced, it's important for the concept of Point. The point is one of the five components of the subject-UGCCNet. The design idea of the Point ID aims at enabling global access which is significant for the UGCCNet. It is also observed that the item Point ID appears many many times in the four standards which further proves its importance. Hbjhappy (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Hbjhappy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are primary sources, no notable secondary source coverage. PianoDan (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment according to the references, the item does play an important role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habert. L. (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)— Habert. L. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I think the item is usefull. After reading the references, I agree with Hbjhappy. The item is woth keeping.Brene Brown (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)— Brene Brown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, lacks reliable, independent third party sources. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 21 April 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.