Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization[edit]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The history of this article is shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions&type=revision&diff=742233481&oldid=742219241. As noted, this is a personal essay and is not written in an encyclopedic style, and overlaps other articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's an essay, it cites no references, and it's not even clear from the opening sentences what it's meant to be about. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—if it were sourced some of this might be worth moving to Crowd control, but with no inline references it's impossible to see what's salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no disrespect to the student who has created this article. The professor who initiated this project seriously needs to read up on Wikipedia's polices! Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreeing with nomination. This is a misguided article and does not follow Wikipedia convention for creation, tone or style. The professor, just as any other editor, should have done due research. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crowd Tracking just appeared from a user who belongs to the same class, going by their respective user pages. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2016 (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.