Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's correlations

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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen's correlations

Another scientific term named after "Ronen," sourcing articles with only Y. Ronen as the author, and having no Google Scholar hits, and no google hits except Wikipedia clones. No third-party reliable sources or evidence of notability provided. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number.) -- SCZenz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for similar WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:COI concerns as Ronen's number. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term may get picked up by the scientific establishment but so far it is pure OR/neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When one looks at how well the references that he lists are cited (by authors other than himself) it doesn't appear that the concept is being applied or commented upon by the relevant scientific community to any signifigant extent. On top of that, the article doesn't even specify what the relationships/correlations are making the article not much more than a vanity page (although to be fair, he doesn't call it Ronen's correlation in his papers). Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original neologism and as non-notable pseudo-science. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (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.