Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robustness Diagram

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 speedily deleted by User:Opabinia regalis per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness Diagram

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

No context, no references, no links to other articles. The first sentence is one of several self-referential definitions. This topic may be notable, but the content of the article is unencyclopedic in tone and would need to be completely re-written. Neither an expert nor a non-expert would be likely to understand the content. Roches (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Context is clear enough to tell that this is a Unified Modeling Language diagram to analyze robustness (computer science) in computer systems. Sources resides mainly with UML tutorial (text)books. You can argue it is not separately significant from the concept of robustness to deserve an article though. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recommendations above: its a problem of someone not writing encyclopedically, not that the topic isn't notable. A quick google books/scholar search shows plenty of fairly significant discussion of the topic on its own. That being said, a well done merge might be useful in the shortterm, until someone takes a real pass at creating a full article, Sadads (talk) 20:10, 12 May 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect the lack of comments is due to the first part of the bikeshed effect: since none really understands what the article topic is about none wishes to comment. I can safely say that I do not understand, either.

Searching for sources makes it clear this is a real thing (for instance, see this). Now this is probably going to be a "permatagged" (overtechnical article with little chance to ever be brought to a mortal's understanding). Tigraan (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation from [1] - FYI Roches —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation; nice catch, Мандичка. Once the copyvio text is deleted, only the title and a bare reference is left. Robustness diagrams seem common enough to be notable. Hence no prejudice to a newly re-created article that is properly written and referenced. --Mark viking (talk) 00:08, 2 June 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.