Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Activity cycle diagram

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activity cycle diagram

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article is solely based on primary material, namely on original ideas published in scientific journals. It is not an encyclopedic article. wp:primary, wp:allprimary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the opening sentence and the whole "Developing the activity cycle diagram" section are copyvio. I'm not finding much in the way of secondary sources that employ this term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is copyvio. Also, there are a few articles in scientific journals but no reviews or secondary analysis. So, for delete. Cinadon36 08:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I removed the copyvio. I'm not sure if this is a violation of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find numerous mentions of the term in academically-published books through Google Books, and these are not passing mentions, but explain the purpose and use of these diagrams. I think the topic is notable enough (regardless of the page's current contents). The concept was invented in 1960 by Tocher, later formally defined, and other scholars have analyzed its limitations and tried to expand the concept.[1] One book says "two diagramming methods used in discrete-event simulation are activity cycle diagrams and process maps"[2], so I think whatever this article ends up being, it should be summarized at Discrete-event simulation. DFlhb (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! This comment is already much more useful than the text in the article. Why don´t you give it a shot and edit the article? Then I would support the keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to be assessing the notability of the topic not the quality of the page as it stands. If you are accepting that you would !vote keep based on new sources then you are voting !keep as your support cannot be dependent on cleanup. JMWt (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Based on the sources provided by @DFlhb, I vote to keep the article. I invite DFlhb to clean the article up. If not, I´ll do it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I already have quite a long to-do list of other articles to improve; feel free to do so! DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I introduced your sources and reworked the article a little bit. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nom has withdrawn and says they are now !voting keep. JMWt (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (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.