Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data-constrained modelling

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. For the record, that a term is widely used does not mean that it is notable enough for an article - we need discussion on the term specifically to establish that per WP:GNG. Also, we have Wiktionary for term definitions. Also, most people arguing against deletion appear to be single-purpose accounts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data-constrained modelling

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I'm astonished we still have this article. It was written by the person it claims originated the term, the early revisions are deleted as copyright violations of his published work, and virtually all the sources are his papers. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "data-constrained modelling" has a high hit rate in Google keyword search, and has been published by a range of rigorously peer-reviewed journals and other publications. These are indications of the community acceptance. It would serve as a helpful reference if the term is included in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangys au (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yangys au (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Yangys au (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As written, it's vanispamcruftisement for a topic that is far, far more narrow than the title would suggest (most scientific models are constrained by data in some way!). The most highly-cited paper on the topic that I can find ([1]) has only 43 GS citations, which is well below any reasonable standard of notability (recalling that GS casts a pretty wide net for what counts as "published"). XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'data-constrained modelling' appears widely in the literature (Measurement Science & Engineering, Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, Modelling & Simulation in Material Science & Engineering, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, Advanced Materials, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Physical Review E, Fuel, Materials & Corrosion, Materials Characterization, ...). A Web of Science search indicates the term 'data-constrained modelling' refers exclusively to the approach described in the article.The software that embodies the technique is available for download from the CSIRO Data Access Portal (CSIRO is Australia's main government research organisation). It has been downloaded and used by researchers in Australia, China, Europe and the USA, including RMIT University, Monash University, Melbourne University, Deakin University, several institutes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Stanford University, Manchester University, Shanxi University, Tinjing University, China University of Petroleum and North University of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy Tony Dr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Murphy Tony Dr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Actually, I've seen the term used verbatim in ecology, in a sense that has nothing I can see to do with 3D microstructures. Also avalanche dynamics and paleoclimatology. (It's a very generic-sounding term.) Availability of the software for downloading does not count towards notability, nor does the fact that the authors have themselves published repeatedly. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly see a compelling reason why it should be deleted. For people like me, it is a useful source of reference. For those people who don't need it, it is harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.26.34.65 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — 218.26.34.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading attempt to appropriate a widely-applied term for one person's output. If the described approach (setting modeling bounds based on available data) is sufficiently rare in microstructure research for the author(s) to specifically dub it with an acronym, good for them, but it doesn't merit an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Piggybacking on what others have said, this pretty much falls into WP:NEOLOGISM territory for the way the author is trying to stretch the term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is widely used, a constructive action is to add the missing information. A widely used term should not be deleted. 61.157.136.229 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — 61.157.136.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.