Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zigzag code

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 keep. John254 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzag code

Looks like original research DimaG (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not pure WP:OR, the paper it cites is from 1999 and at least one other research paper (with no authors in common) was written on the subject in 2005 [1]. I cite that one because it is definitely the same meaning of the phrase "zigzag code"; I see a number of other papers which I think are related but I am not yet sure. No !vote yet because I am not convinced either way of notability, but it definitely ain't OR. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar finds 138 articles mentioning zigzag codes, 38 of them with the phrase in the title. The paper cited by the stub here has 50 citations. I think this is more than sufficient to provide the multiple reliable sources needed for a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amplifying to keep or merge and redirect to appropriate article on error-coding, per David Eppstein. I had a feeling based on some initial Googling that it was a notable (though highly specialized) topic, but I didn't feel I'd done enough research to verify either way. Thanks for doing the legwork! I'm convinced now that it's notable. Not sure it needs its own article (would need a subject matter expert to tell us that) but the content should not be deleted. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short article to error-correcting code. Notable engineering topic. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not WP:NOR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In haste to create a string of AFD nominations, the nominator seems to have overlooked that the topic was referenced to an IEEE journal. I wonder what about it "looks like original research." --C S (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps merge. Paul August ☎ 03:56, 28 July 2008 (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.