Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 19. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 as there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable ranking method. It springs from a single academic journal article, which isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's noted in Pairwise comparison, maybe a redirect to that article? --Abc518 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Redirect per Abc518. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- No longer in the article --Abc518 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 12 non-Wikipedia Google hits. A redirect of this long term given the complete absence of interest in this system would be inappropriate. I have removed its mention in Pairwise comparison per WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on the article I wrote ... But I can assure you that this method, which I co-invented, is, although relatively new, a bona fide approach to multi-criteria decision analysis. As such it belongs in a list of such methods at the article "multi-criteria decision analysis", and it needs to be explained (presumably in a linked article). The reference in the article is to an important peer-reviewed journal in the area (in the field of Operations Research). If you are in doubt, have a look at the article. If you cannot easily obtain a full copy, I am happy to email you a PDf. Paulwizard (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Note "co-invented" and "relatively new"; there is a single journal article on the matter. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines require multiple independent, reliable, sources giving significant coverage. One reliable source giving significant coverage is not enough, particularly when that journal article is not at all independent of the method's "creator".
Sure, I wrote the article referred to, but the journal in which it appears is independently and blind peer refereed (by experts in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis and the journal's editors). The article was only published (online) last week (after over 2 years spent in the reviewing and editing process). Please note the name of the journal too: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (equivalent to the title of the article at which I added the new method described in the article being discussed here.) Paulwizard (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make a difference - the journal article was written by you, who hardly counts as a third party. You're missing the main point; explain how your new method passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically: Has this method been commented on in at least 2 sources by people who were not involved in its creation? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't make a difference - the journal article was written by you, who hardly counts as a third party. You're missing the main point; explain how your new method passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Abductive. --Robin (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking third-party sources at this time; could be recreated later once some independent analysis appears. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (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.