Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Grid Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knowledge_Grid

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. There appears to be consensus to delete this; if anyone wants the deleted content to do something with it, please ask Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Prod contested without rationale. Essay, original research, single-source, promotional in tone, neologism. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, not really sure about this one Lots and lots of hits including an article in CACM suggest that this is real; however the current version focused entirely on one Chinese researcher, assuming that he's even writing about the same thing, is not the way this needs to be written. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh sigh, yet another "grid of wonderfulness". It looks like two professors use this term, one in Italy and one in China (plus their students, apparently). They have been doing it for several years since 2004 or so (when the term grid computing was trendy). One vendor uses the term inside a product. Not sure if that still qualifies as a neologism or not. The first two definitions seem close, while the third is substantially different. I also question the capital letters. The book title of course would be a proper name, but we generally do not have articles on each book unless it is clearly noted by independent sources. If this article is not about the book per se, then of course there is undue weight to the book as it stands. The product name could be considered a proper name, but the general concept certainly should not be in upper case if, as it says, "various Knowledge Grids[sic] exist in society..." More than one implies not a proper name. For the proper name of the single grid of all knowlege in the world, I would liken to Semantic Web but that is not mentioned at all here. A search on Wikipedia reveals that Resource Space Model is even worse, about one chapter in Zhuge's book. A web search turns up a http://www.knowledgegrid.net/ a web site for the group in English and http://kg.ict.ac.cn/ in Chinese and English. I would propose my usual, that we beef up the articles on the concept topics and reduce the speific forks. In particular the following:

1. Merge Resource Space Model into Faceted classification
2. Merge a short summary of Zhuge's research into Grid computing
3. Merge a short summary of Talia's work into Data mining (??)
4. Move Knowledge Grid to redirect to Knowledge grid
5. Convert to a disambig page pointing to the three or four articles where the variants are discussed

W Nowicki (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: User:Hzhuge seems to imply it is associated with the Chinese researcher. Looks like a single-purpose account used just to create the Resource Space Model article. From the talk page seems like also created Semantic link network which was speedily delete in 2009 as copyright violation. No edits since then, the rest are from unregistered users. W Nowicki (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There indeed seem to be two efforts using this term, which makes them somewhat messy. Judging from Google Scholar, one can consider them notable: [1] (the Cantarro/Talia article has 300+ citations, the Zhuge book 200+ citations). However, I don't feel that the Talia effort fits well into the Data mining article, which is already a bit too large and cannot cover all efforts on data mining in grids. On the long run, I'd like to split even more parts out into separate articles (largely removing the text contents of section "Notable uses", replacing it with a shorter summary) and instead elaborate more on they key data mining tasks such as cluster analysis and outlier detection. It might then make more sense to split that out into a separate "Data mining in grids" article (and add other efforts there, too) that could be linked from the See-also section and/or notable use. --Chire (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. from an IP that worked on the aforementioned Resource Space Model article: Digital ecosystem and Cyber-physical system#Cyber-Physical Society also seem to be related to User:Hzhuge and have WP:COI: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 52#Resource Space Model. Not sure about these, the COI discussion sounds as if there have been problems before. --Chire (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone's got to take a stand here. There's no strong indication that this is more than a one-person project. I'm happy to adjust my vote if someone shows up to defend this article. --Kvng (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is evidence that each project has a fair number of students and even a few visiting professors or collaborators. And publications like CACM are fairly well refereed so trust that they are reasonable to mention somewhere. Which is why I already did some of the work proposed above. Thus a delete of this article would not be much of a loss, except perhaps to attract another attempt to recreate. Still think a disambig might make sense if someone tries it as a search term. W Nowicki (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that my work on merging a couple sentences into Faceted classification has evidently been reverted . Sigh. Do not see the point of working any more on it then. W Nowicki (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I noticed previously that while the main Zhuge has lots of citations, almost all of them are from his own group/students/collaborators.... A13ean (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The basic article--which is by Cannataro, not Shuge, has 333 citations in G Scholar. Others of his works on that topic have over 100.[2]. I suspect the emphasis on Zhuge here may be inappropriate and the article may beed some major rebalancing. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. The lede suggests the article is a dictionary definition (but it doesn't appear to be). The bulk of the article appears to be about a proposed software system, with no indication it was ever built. We have many pages on grid computing, but the article doesn't appear to describe it's relationship to any of them. There are many references (none directly linked), many of which share an author and most of which appear to have achieved their references through citation circles. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2011 (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.