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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity-based-TOPSIS[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are several reasons to remove this page from the Wikipedia: (1) This user (Pasiluukka) used his paper which is a clear case of self-promotion (user name = author name of the main reference). (2) The paper which proposed Similarity-based-TOPSIS received a few citations in recent years, which is not notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. (3) This is a small extension of TOPSIS article, and there is no need to create a page for any small extension. Scholartop (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TOPSIS: Per nom, this is partially OR and partially an extension of an existing article. WP:ATD is best suited here. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion but how many scholars used this method already? There are so many extensions on the TOPSIS method which are more important than "Similarity-based-TOPSIS". Moreover, this user used Wikipedia for self-promotion which is truly clear. Without considering these issues, this article is hard to read, low quality and there is not enough independent references to prove its notability. Scholartop (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly, it is a case of self-promotion. One can find hundreds of extensions of popular techniques and certainly only the influential ones meet the notability criterion of Wikipedia. I support deletion of this article while suggesting a sub-section should be created in TOPSIS, where the extensions of this technique can be listed. However, only "notable" extensions (e.g., the ones with many citations) can be added. Researcherphd (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Researcherphd, this certainly seems to be a case of using Wikipedia for promotion. It may be that a brief mention can be made over at TOPSIS but that should be based on reliable independent sources, and as Researcherphd says, anything over there should summarize the range of extensions that such sources discuss, not necessarily even including this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment particularly relating to merging: this highlights a common problem with Wikipedia articles on technical methods. Methods naturally progress by people coming up with new variants, which they publish. The vast majority of variants, for one reason or another, don't get used. But either their creators self-cite, or someone gets excited and inserts the new variant, citing the original source. And we end up with a technical article that lists twenty-five completely trivial variants that are never used, which detracts from the overview of the one or two versions that have dominated "real work" since the original discovery. Merging shouldn't be used as "delete-but-I'm-not-totally-sure-so-merge". Merging is for when something is notable but small enough to be covered more effectively in a parent article. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The self-promotion is clear in this case and I suggest to delete this article. Moreover, after checking the contributions of this user (Pasiluukka), I found that this user wrote two more articles, which can be deleted with the current article as well: Fuzzy similarity based TOPSIS and N-ary Topsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narges 2020 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2023 (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.