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. Sandstein 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A formal introduction to diagnosability of DES systems

[edit]

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

I cannot see why this is an article: is at an essay? a how-to guide? High-quality information, perhaps, but not encyclopedic at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This article is currently lacking in context that would enable a reader unfamiliar with the topic to even get an idea of what the subject is referring to. Not until the "References" section is the abbreviation "DES" ever spelled out. This content may be valuable to some people, but the rest of us are at least entitled to know what the subject has to do with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 09:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept of diagnosability in AI is well-known. Discrete event dynamic systems can be modeled by finite state machines, a type of automaton. Automata can in turn be modeled as formal languages. So this article is about detecting and diagnosing problems in automata, representing both the diagnostic algorithm and the automata as formal languages. This is a popular approach these days to modeling testing of complex hardware and software systems. There are enough references out there (the first three I came across were ^[1], ^[2], and ^[3]) that the topic of diagnosis in automata seems notable. The article needs a lot of improvement: no lead, an opaque introduction, little motivation for the formal language approach, not a lot on diagnosability itself beyond a few definitions, no citations, and ill-formatted and incomplete references. The article was created by user NRV-MSDES with only that single edit and a name that is suggestive of this article. Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Diagnosability of DES systems" may be a notable and worthy subject, but "A formal introduction to diagnosability of DES systems" is not. Would moving the page to a more suitable title solve the "encyclopedic" issue, leaving only writing problems? If so, I am willing to withdraw my nomination; but I really don't understand anything written in the article, so I have no way of knowing. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that moving the article to a more general/neutral title would help create a better-grounded, more encyclopedic article. Perhaps "Diagnosability of a discrete event system", as the acronym DES usually stands for "discrete event simulation"? My best guess is that this article was created as a quick summary of a single technical article in the field and as such, doesn't really have a neutral point of view. Renaming the article might encourage a more balanced approach, too. A rename would allow the topic to become notable, making the article more keepable. Mark viking (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark: if you are familiar with the subject, can you tell me whether there is any article-worthy content there? And if there is, does Diagnosability of discrete event system (systems?) accurately describe the topic? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the very delayed reply. I understand the gist of the article, but I'm not an expert in this branch of AI. Comparing this article to the AI diagnosis article, they really discuss the same subject. This article could be thought of as a specialization of the AI diagnosis article to just the formal language based modeling of diagnosability. I suppose that argues for merging of useful content from this article to the AI diagnosis article. In my opinion, the useful content to merge is (1) the list of references is fine, but need work to add volume and page numbers, etc. (2) the Discrete Event Model for Diagnostics section could be a useful addition to the AI diagnosis article but, it would need a good bit of fleshing out to make it more understandable. Mark viking (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted in hopes the above discussion would be finished before closing. Courcelles 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails of what this is supposed to be about. Calling all Electrical Engineers... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear essay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2013 (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.