Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distinctiveness centrality


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Distinctiveness centrality

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Concept developed and cited exclusively in a bunch of very low influencial works by the same author who, by chance, is the author of everything the article creator writes about on wiki. Vituzzu (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the hallmarks of academic spam; new coinage, no evidence I can find that it's been studied by anyone other than the author. --JBL (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. At Vituzzu: I do not understand your position against my articles. The pages we are creating have secondary sources and usually refer to social network metrics and software that are knonwn and used by many scholars. The works you judge as "low influencial" have many citations and have been published in well-respected sources (both primary and secondary, such as Elsevier's journals or major newspapers). I think before changing, deleting or trying to delete all our articles, we could have had a reasonable discussion about it. We are just trying to contribute to wikipedia and the free diffusion of knowledge. Somethingtoshare (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Somethingtoshare (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Specifically, you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia the free diffusion of knowledge of the work of one particular person or group. This behavior is also known as "spam".  The article under consideration in this discussion has no secondary sources, and concerns a topic that is essentially brand new, so could not possibly have had time to become influential.  Most of the rest of your comment does not have anything to do with the article that is the subject of this discussion.  If you want to make Wikipedia better, write about something other than yourself and your work.  (Also I can't help myself: A publication in an Elsevier journal!  Wow!  That's ... extremely common and not an indication of significance or value of any kind.)  --JBL (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear case of academic spam, no evidence that this has gotten any attention beyond the works of Colladon. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only publication related to this outside of its original authors that I found was a spammy cryptocurrency paper 10.1007/978-3-030-66981-2_8, which uses this in passing as part of a broader use of Semantic Brand Score (also up for deletion after being spammed here by the same people). I don't think that's the kind of in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources required for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination and the "delete" !votes above. At best, it's too soon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2021 (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.