Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valuation-based system

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation-based system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article lacks context. Suggest redirecting to expert system. Andrew³²⁷ 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andrew³²⁷ 20:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - no deletion rationale provided. We have an assertion that the article should be redirected, but that's a matter for discussion at the article talk page. Also, "lacking context" isn't a deletion rationale, even if deletion were be suggested. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Saw the query about this on Sandstein's page. There is no independent significant coverage of this topic. All the sources presented are written by one primary author. The author is closely associated with the content on this page. Wikipedia lags behind the science. We are not here to present the leading edge of original research. This is someone promoting their original research on Wikipedia. Hence, I don't think this should be merged or redirected. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion wp:promo. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears this page was created by an SPA [1]. So, this has the components of being promotional and having WP:COI issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reading the article and Steve Quinn's comments, I expected to find all of the coverage in reliable sources to be written by Prakash P. Shenoy. Then, I searched Google Scholar and discovered that other academics such as S Quiu, X Ming, M Sallak and W Schön have written extensively about the topic in peer reviewed sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen328. A google scholar search does indeed reveal a large number of academic publications either applying VBS or studying VBS or citing VBS (206 to be exact across 32 years of publications in multiple journals and disciplines). With over 30 years of relevant literature, I don't think this is a new or cutting edge concept anymore, but accepted and established and replicated. Rather than being self-promotional, the article rightly cites and focuses in on the seminal author and his work within this conceptual framework, much as we would place Einstein and his work at the center of the Theory of Relativity. As for lacking context, that's an editorial issue that requires improvement of the article. Further, the suggestion to redirect should have been raised on the talk page. It's not an issue that should be brought to AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cullen. In general, a crappy article or one written by a WP:SPA is not a criteria for deletion, but all the more the reason for improvement of said article. I suppose WP:DYNAMITE sometimes applies, but this is not one of those cases. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:09, 10 September 2021 (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.