Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CN-MoM


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CN-MoM

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The term "CN-MoM" (or "combined node method of moments") only appears on the two conference papers cited on the article (which themselves have no citations). All citations except Harrington's Method of Moments book appears to be the original research of the article's creator, including a PhD thesis on the specific method (WP:COI/WP:SELFCITE/WP:OR) The method itself is a modification of MoM for PCB analysis; I couldn't find any further independent research or follow-up publications in the CEM literature to establish the notability of this method for a standalone article (or a section on the boundary element method page). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I also looked but could find nothing here; it appears to be research spam. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably an attempt to promote the creator's own work, what with the technique being credited to Reza Sabbagh Amirkhizi and the page started by (who has edited nothing else). In any event, as the nomination argues, it's not a notable method. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG, with no coverage of this anywhere except from the creator. I couldn't find anything in extenral referenced and there is no mention of this in the Harrington reference. — MarkH21talk 21:51, 24 September 2020 (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.