Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Methodology for Analytical Models

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. Thanks everyone who contributed to the discussion. If you are not happy with the decision, please bring it up here. Missvain (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Methodology for Analytical Models

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

The article fails all notability guidelines. There is a single linked-in post by the same author that mentions this "standard" methodology. In other words, it is WP:OR, and the authors wants to promote/advertise his own methodology and coin a new name. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

94.210.76.161 (talk) disagree. This is not an advertisement of promotion of my own methodology. It is a writeup on how IBM does analytical engagements. As such, it is interesting to read for other analytical practitioners. As mentioned in the article, the work of data scientists contains a lot of tacit knowledge. That is, the ways of working are not put in books or readable format. I tried to change that with this write up. Again: no original research, I document a process that many people (also outside of IBM) follow, but has never been put in writing. — Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

114.108.212.96 (talk)how can this still be up for deletion if in the discussions there's no objection? I researched many other Wiki pages, to find that many topics on Wiki are in fact write-ups on things that exist, but have not been explained in so much detail before. For example, look at https://transferwise.com/support/customer/en/portal/articles This contains all the articles of Transferwise, but none of those articles discusses the "how it works" section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise. So, is this reason for deletion? — Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@114.108.212.96: Citing an article that you believe has issues does not address the substance of the issues with this article: 1) its is non-notable (no other mention of this other than recent posts by the author of the Wikipedia entry), 2) Original Research (no citations where this methodology has been discussed other than those connected with the author, 3) IP issues - it is unclear if this is the intellectual property of IBM and if the author has the authority to publish. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or general publication. As such it should only record knowledge which can be demonstrated to be widely know and discussed other than by those who have created and/or own the intellectual property. 1.136.97.2 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (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.