Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous computing

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. A notable topic that's very easily sourced, though this article isn't. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous computing[edit]

Yow! A humungous heap of original research and more weblinks than you can poke a stick at. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Ubiquitous computing emerged as a new topic in computer science. Challenges are in developing new kind of applications. The article gives a simple and global view of the area and given links are very useful. 82.238.123.210 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is here is not worth having. The subject might however be notable (I'm no expert on it). Sam Blacketer 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - ubiquitous computing is an area of research that has had a long history including research from the Xerox PARC, see [1]. None of this is original research, and there are many papers on ubiquitous computing as can be seen from the resources link in the article. The article could use some copyeditting (I've tagged it) but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a verifiable and notable concept and field of study. A Google Scholar search for "ubiquitous computing" turns up about about 24,500 results. There's a whole IEEE journal dedicated to it (already linked from the article). There are university centers and research projects studying ubiquitous computing, at for example, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University, and Carnegie Mellon University. It's taught at MIT, University of Toronto, and Georgia Tech. There are over 1700 hits for "ubiquitous computing" in a Google News search, including (behind paywalls) articles on the general topic from the NYT, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc. As Whpq says above, the article needs some cleanup and appropriate attribution, but that's not a reason for deletion. schi ^talk 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legitimate article. Requires major sourcing, but should remain and be improved. ◄Zahakiel ► 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a well known, standard, and notable branch of computer science research, not WP:OR. Just to give some examples that I don't think are atypical, my university has a course and research lab devoted to the subject, and ten faculty members who include it in their interests. —David Eppstein 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I agree that this is an important area of research. The article could be more informative about the issues ubicomp raises but the links are useful––Gilliancs 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said, this is an important and interesting area of research, and is notable enough to deserve an article. Unfortunately, it is also a very young area of research, and it will be next to impossible to write a good article about it for a few years yet. I say that having a poor article consisting mostly of links is better than no article at all on this topic. (OTOH, I have no intention of working on this article ...) CWC(talk) 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute keep. A quick google search reveals links like this published paper, an academic conference, and a project at Carnegie Mellon. --Ideogram 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may be poorly written and referenced, but the field itself is a legitmate area of research, with (as other editors have already pointed out) journals and conferences dedicated to it. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:the IEEE has a journal devoted to ubiquitous computing: Pervasive Computing, which is "A catalyst for advancing research and practice in mobile and ubiquitous computing". The ACM lists the journal Personal and Ubiquitous Computing as one of its affiliates. The fact that the two major professional/academic societies for computing in the US consider "ubiquitous computing" a field worthy of a journal would seem to be a pretty good indication that the field in question is sufficiently notable to have an article in Wikipedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep. Over a million refs in Google. "Articles for deletion" and other banners just unhelpful and unsightly clutter. What's to stop vandals from submitting numerous articles for deletion and forcing everyone to view the notices for the long discussion periods?Anthony717 21:10, 13 March 2007 (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.