English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/SurvCART algorithm

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. ✗plicit 00:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SurvCART algorithm

[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)

This article has five citations: Two are authored by Madan Kundu, the originator of the algorithm. The other three do not mention this algorithm at all and are apparently cited to support background information. I have looked, and as far as I can tell no independent, reliable sources about this algorithm exist. Note that there are a few hits on google scholar that refer to the 'survcart' dataset, that is an unrelated dataset for studying cancer survival rates. I believe this topic does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Also worth noting that given the article creator's username, a COI is likely. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Response from creator (Jan 01, 2022, 22:53 EST)

Please do no delete this page. There are three points raised by the Editor and here is my response:

Citation: I described the all the available methods in this domain. So now there is total of 9 citations. I hope this would make feel you better about the neutrality. There is nothing in that article that express biased view towards the proposed algorithm.

Reliable source: The source is https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11539 which is a peer-reviewed article published in a respected Wiley journal (not an open access). Therefore, reliability cannot be questioned.

Independently written sources: The Self-Promotion clause does not restrict the researcher to write about they topic they work on. It says to maintain a neutral point of view which is there in the article as all other competing methods are cited.

Independent of the subject: The work is not related to any advertising, press releases, and autobiographies. It's a plain science.

Therefore, the editor's nomination for deletion of this page is very subjective and not fact driven. The editor's comment is very superficial. Please let me know if any specific lines or sentences in the article that editor or anyone feel violates neutrality, and I will be happy to remove or revise that.

On a side note, I noticed that once I challenged the removal of my contribution of "Survival Tree" page, the editor immediately nominated SurvCART algorithm page for deletion. It feels like quite a Retaliation and I am sure Wikipedia does not indulge that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) — Madanstat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete in addition to the undeclared WP:COI, which is a serious problem in and of itself, there's no evidence that this is NOTABLE. PianoDan (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and there is the COI issue as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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.