- 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- IREDES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: [4]) --ZimZalaBim talk 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [5], which Oaktree b also found, and here [6]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't access the first source, but the second source gives only half a page to the topic. How much is in the first source? Wizmut (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here as there is a fundamental difference of opinion on some sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 11 January 2025 (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.