Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-Optimization Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Self-Optimization

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. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Optimization

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

A google search gets you results for "self optimization", but not in the terms being described in this article. It's a pretty generic term. PROD was declined, so turning to AFD. Until a single source can be provided to verify this term and/or its importance, this is just pure WP:NEO and should be deleted. This article is also an expansion of Optimi, a similarly CSD'd article written by the same apparent WP:SPA account. — Timneu22 · talk 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The term is not a neologism, it is recognised and used within the field of mobiile telephone technology, as indicated in two references to the article and in the existing wikipedia article on Self-Optimizing Networks. While a merge to that article would be an option, the subject is possibly worth an article in its own right, if expanded by someone competent to do so (which rules me out). Having had an article CSD'd (not "similarly", because this one hasn't been) is no justification for deleting this effort. Jimmy Pitt talk 07:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mark as a stub. Wikify. Needs expansion. Legit concept for inclusion in an encyclopedia, I think. Carrite (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into the appropriate article, whatever that is. Should every technical term have its own Wikipedia page? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2010 (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.