Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PileInspect

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PileInspect

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

A rather obscure research project with no attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not seem to me to be encyclopaedic material. If there is an article on pile testing, or whatever, it could and should reference the page given which describes the aims and design of this specific project. Of course, if this project turned out to be a crucial step in the development of better foundations it would be notable. Imaginatorium (talk)

Dear Roger and Imaginatorium, thanks for your comments on Wikipedia page 'PileInspect'. We have clear and detailed design of an integrated system, both on hardware development and signal processing algorithms. We are now in preparation of patent application and academic publications some of which have been accepted and will be presented soon. Due to patents issue, please excuse us from releasing the details temporarily. It can also be expected that PileInspect system's novel technologies will be recognized and sourced in the near future. We hope this article will not be simply deleted because it is just lack of verifiability temporarily. We will improve and enrich this article with solid materials on the techniques achieved from the PileInspect project as soon as possible. The recent revisions on this article include:

Added 'See also' of 2 nearly related techniques in pile integrity testing. In the 'Objective', we explained the differences between our system with these 2 traditional methods;
Added the category of this article to 'Geotechnical Engineering'.Zhenghaitao (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Zhenghaitao: I guess you are a new editor here. You should learn a bit about Wikipedia policies, among which WP:N (a subject is covered only if it was covered by reliable, secondary sources); WP:CRYSTAL (if something is not notable or verifiable yet, we have no business in guessing whether it will be later); and also a bit of WP:COI (if you have a close connection with the subject it is best to refrain from editing it). Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tigrann. I will improve the article by adding more reliable, third-party sources. I wish the page can be left in Wikipedia by Tagging not just simply deletion. Zhenghaitao (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On User_talk:Coren you said: "We are creating the Wikipedia page which is a project task." Are you saying that your project, your manager, or someone else has told you to make a Wikipedia page? If so the page should obviously be deleted immediately. You could try to explain to whoever it is that this is not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise there is no obvious reason you should "need" to have this page on WP: you can create the article somewhere else, and host it on your project website, blog, or whatever. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:36, 20 March 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.