Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best worst method

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best worst method

[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)

Appears to be one epidemic's pet statistical project. Sources are all primary originating (presumably) with the author of the article. Searches reveal little of benefit - although many hits for " best worst outcome" as a generalised English expression. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:OR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite and expand. I found several recent papers ([1] [2] [3] [4]) from different authors that appear to build on this research; these sources appear to satisfy WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the phrase is widely used prior to 2015, for example best–worst scaling is often refered to as "best worst method".--Pontificalibus 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 06:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT - the current article is only sourced to a primary source and borders on promoting the method. There are certainly some citations, but I'm not sure they are usable to write an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seem to be quite a few scholarly papers on this subject. In addition to the ones ComplexRational found there are also [5], [6] (in which admittedly Rezaei is a coauthor), [7] and others. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NUKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GN-z11 (talk • contribs)
Keep - references provided above, by mutually unconnected research teams, easily demonstrate currency in scientific discourse. Article really needs those additional refs, however; sourcing is definitely insufficient at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find quality sources, not linked to the author of this term, that consider this term notable. Seems like this Dr. has made-up a term to an obvious decision making process and tried to claim ownership of it; hence the article is also promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Alternate Merge to Pairwise comparison: A 2015 neologism by Rezaei that has not made it past the mathematical and scientific studying and research, new papers, and alternate models. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of terms such as these. Compare different multi-criteria decision making interval ratios to represent pairwise differences (pairwise comparisons): Euclidean best-worst method (Euclidean BWM), Cognitive Best Worst Method (CBWM), VIKOR method, and Chebyshev BWM. A common problem in practice is that pairwise comparison methods usually lack consistency such as the original non-linear model (NLM) so in 2016 Rezaei introduced the linear model. This has been argued as not accurate and an alternate MILM model has been suggested. "Scholarly research" is great but we shouldn't create articles based just on these as we would have thousands of articles on terms and words supported sometimes by just an author with cross-references from other research papers debating, contradicting, or otherwise modifying and even changing a term. I would not be opposed to the different models listed in a parent article (like "Pairwise comparison") and creating articles if and when reliable sources show independent notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (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.