Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envelope model


 * 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. This is a difficult one. On the surface, it looks like "no consensus" leaning towards "delete". In discussions like this, the easy way out is to call it "no consensus" and walk away, but I don't think that served Wikipedia best nor truly is reflective of our goals. Instead I have to look beyond this local consensus and consider "what would the community do" and what has been the outcome in similar discussion in the past when the vote was leaning delete and there were so many documentable problems with the article.

feminist makes a strong argument to keep, in that we shouldn't punish the reader because of the misdeeds of the author. If there is no debate about the content itself, that is as strong of an argument as you can have, but that isn't the case here. Even some "Keep" votes say to strip the article down, or it needs work, and this waters down feminist's reasonable concern. Obvious, some parts of the article have some merit, but most people seem to agree that most of it is problematic.

CBS527 makes a strong argument to delete and backs it with logic and links to prove their point. Others raise concerns about the sources, and of course the COI. Normally, having a COI isn't a problem as long as you can't tell by their editing. We all have a conflict of interest for some organization or group. When that conflict does raise it's ugly head by using your own published material as the main sources for the article, and you haven't bothered to have those sources vetting by others (WP:AFC is just one option), the community has most frequently opted for the WP:NUKEANDPAVE option. This is the community saying that deleting the article doesn't bar us from using any of the good parts in the future, but it is simply better to start from scratch than try to rehabilitate this article.

Finally, this is a complicated topic, beyond my simple brain to fully grasp. Because of that, fewer people can actually monitor the article and there is a higher risk of bad information being published here. This means we must be strict when it comes to which sources we use, something the current article fails at. I think the concern about this permeates the entire discussion. Judging the current arguments against the actual state of the article, and understanding the usual outcome for similar articles forces my hand.

In short, while an argument could be had to close as "no consensus", I think the community consensus (including the arguments here and previous cases) point towards delete. I will add two notes: There is no prejudice against anyone else without a COI recreating a proper article in this space, and I'm happy to userfy this article to anyone's personal space to facilitate that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Envelope model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've monitored this page since its creation and listing in the New Pages Feed. I personally think that there may be a WP:COI here, but I can't prove it, other than the fact that it was made by a WP:SPA and the article clearly and numerously states the creators of the model. Let's be honest - this wouldn't be the first time academics are trying to publish their research on Wikipedia. But again, that's just my spidey-senses tingling. For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and the article is written in such a way that it would not be understandable or to any value to the average Wiki user. Then again, I don't have a BSc in Maths so I can't really talk - a debate is strongly encouraged (I may be wrong about the importance of this). Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Envelop model appears to a legitimate concept. Dean Esmay (talk)
 * Yes, but does it pass WP:NOTE? The sources are no WP:THIRDPARTY sources. If it doesn't then (in my opinion) it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Best, Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  10:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "legitimate concept standard" does not keep an article from being deleted.Knox490 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article shouldn't be on Wikipedia because it does meet Wikipedia standards for notability. The article has a major sourcing problem. The article needs to be written so it is more explanatory. I have taken calculus/statistics classes and I don't understand the article. Delete the article and start from scratch. Knox490 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nom that WP:SPA implies WP:COI. Article is horribly confusing and reads like an advanced mathematical paper. As such, not suitable for inclusion. All sources seem to be written by the same person so doubt it passes WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I believe I have heard of envelope models in statistics before I even came to this page.  I am not going to comment on whether it is too technical--it probably is, but that is no reason to delete it.  Even if one or most of the editors has a COI, that doesn't mean we should delete a notable topic.   I can see with Google search in main space, many articles and talks sourced directly back to R. Dennis Cook (Univ. Mich) and Xin Zhang (Florida State Univ.) come up.  But regardless of whether they have done the most recent work, I see many other articles mentioning envelope models in statistics, such as in ultra sounds Modeling the envelope statistics of three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound echo signals from dissected human lymph nodes by international authors, Review of Envelope Statistics Models for Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging and Tissue Characterization by authors in Montreal.  I believe it might be used in wireless too  mentioning "statistical models of envelope distributions"; also ; and Envelope Probability Density Functions for Fading Model in Wireless Communications.    There appear to be numerous other scholarly articles on the subject by other authors not directly related to Zhang and Cook .   --David Tornheim (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The references you are showing don't seem verify what is contained in this article other than envelope modeling was used in their analysis.


 * Modeling the envelope statistics of three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound echo signals from dissected human lymph nodes - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.


 * Review of Envelope Statistics Models for Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging and Tissue Characterization - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.


 * - Predates Cook et all proposal and doesn't reference it


 * - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.


 * Envelope Probability Density Functions for Fading Model in Wireless Communications - Predates Cook et all proposal and doesn't reference it


 * - almost all the papers listed predate the Cook et al proposal.


 * There is no doubt envelope models exists in statistics, mathematics and science research as your sources show. The problem with this article is that it states that generic term "envelope model" refers to a specific proposal and formulations of Cook et al. The article states "The first envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010 ..." which leads the reader to the believe that the term refers only to this specific proposal. An article on envelope model in statistics should define what an envelope model is and include a number of examples where it is used statistical analysis in various fields such as climate envelope models, financial envelope models, etc.
 * I would have no objection if separate article was resubmitted titled "Envelope Models for Efficient Multivariate Linear Regression" (or something more related to it's content) provided reliable, independent or highly cited primary sources were included.  CBS 527 Talk 13:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To analyze sources provided by David Tornheim.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f  e  minist  14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Initial comment I think that allowing works that do not adhere to Wikipedia standards (especially WP:COI) by allowing them to skip Articles for Creation is a dangerous precedent. I need some time to review the links and information.  Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to set any new standards. What standard are you referring to that requires articles to go to WP:AfC?  I was told lots of articles never go there, so I never really understood what WP:AfC was for.  I thought maybe to punish certain editors who create notoriously bad articles.  But I see there is a rule about COI editors having to create them.  That sounds like a good idea.  Are we sure that a COI editor created it?  If so, I might change my vote.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, what I meant by "Even if one or most of the editors has a COI, that doesn't mean we should delete a notable topic" is that we could get rid of the COI work, and just leave the stuff that is not COI. I think the problem is we don't know what is and is not COI.  This is not like an advertisement.  I don't know enough about this topic and I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Had the user gone through the Article Wizard (which is probable) they would have read: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. In my opinion this simply not the case here.
 * I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I apologise if I was too blunt and anything less than civil. I just have a problem with people ignoring basic WP:GNG rules. Because of the topic being a complex mathematical topic that very few people would have any interest at all investigating, let alone write an extended Wikipedia article about, my usual good faith is being tested with this article. I understand the procedures and realities of achieving a PhD and maintaining a 'status' in the scholarly world - through close friends. They are expected to publish, to be cited and well known. Because of these facts, I must take into account a possible WP:COI, that is more probable than the average 'possible' WP:COI for companies or people. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... AfD is flawed in many ways but at the end of the day it leads us to discuss these things in a very open manner. I am still unconvinced that this article in its current state meets WP:GNG among other rules. My reference to AFC was unexplained - it is mainly for people with COI but also for articles that have questionable notability and sources. Ignore all rules is a great 'rule' to refer to, it states that if it could benefit the project then DO IT!, but I find it hard to understand how allowing this to stay will benefit the project. People's references to complexity are generally there because 'complex' things should only be on Wikipedia that have unquestionably passed GNG, so that they are truthful and adhere to a potentially larger audience. A good example is this stub. I agree with  about WP:TNT. Let me know what you think.  Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding COI, all we seem to have is bias towards the topic, and I have seen no diffs where the editors responded in panic to any attempt to delete it by saying, "I work for the author who told me this *must* be on Wikipedia, or I will lose my job" or anything like that. Their belief an obscure topic is notable and needs to be carefully explained doesn't make me automatically think they have something to gain by putting it on Wikipedia.  If it was written as a puff piece, saying, "This is the best thing ever", then I would have a problem with that too.  This might be a student who learned it in a class and thinks it is great stuff.  I have seen plenty of people here on Wikipedia who take extreme positions with a consistent bias, by defending material that is not RS and delete material that is, that contradict the rules and the RS, and they don't get in trouble for having a COI and are even immune from being accused of having a COI, or even being claimed to have a bias (which indirectly suggests they might have a COI, which is "casting aspersions").  The reason is they are immune from criticism for bias and possible COI is because there is no on-wiki evidence they benefit from their biases:  there are always alternative explanations available that cannot be proven because of anonymity protections. I don't agree it should be like that, but that is what I see.  The only exception I know of this was WifiOne.   My parents are both professors, so I know quite a bit about how academia works.  I doubt any of their students feel that a Wikipedia article is important for getting a PhD or tenure.  For a while one thought it would be okay for an expert in the field to write about their work, since they are an expert in the field.  They thought it strange that an expert would be prohibited from directly editing an article about their work, since they know it better than anyone else.  My belief is that if the author did write something on Wikipedia, it would not be for the sake of promoting their work but just to make it easier for someone who wanted to read about it to get to it for free.  That doesn't seem to me at cross purposes with Wikipedia and the purpose of Wikimedia.  The two main authors are probably both professors already, so this is not going to get them a PhD. (that's easy to check.)  And I can't see a Wikipedia article helping them get tenure either--the published works in major peer reviewed journals is what the university is going to care about, and any money they bring in. You do realize that Wikipedia is not well respected in the University, because experts are not verifying the material.  One of the reasons I consider this to be notable, is that they have so many articles already in published journals, and there are many citations to the articles they have written.  If there was just two or three articles, I would not find that notable, but they have quite a long resume of articles, and so I have a feeling they already have respect in their field for their work.  This doesn't seem to be just a novel idea, it is one that a number of different publishers think is worth printing.  Also my last reason to vote keep on a an article like this is that the editors clearly put tons of work into it, and it is a real slap in the face of whoever did that to delete it and not even retain a copy. At an absolute minimum articles like this should be userfied IMHO.  To slap them down so rudely means they would probably never edit on Wikipedia again, even though they are an expert in their field.  I can tell you early on, when I tried to publish a picture I had been authority to publish on Wikipedia, I got so frustrated, I concluded it was not worth it, and I have never tried to publish a picture for any article ever again assuming it would take hours to figure out how to make whoever was anti-new image happy.   --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete & WP:TNT - Fails WP:GNG. Title is misleading - "envelope modeling" is used in multiple fields, for instance weather predicting. Article focuses on "Multivariate Linear Regression Model." A google scholar search for "envelope modeling" doesn't show the MLR Model on the first two pages. Searching "Envelope model Efficient Multivariate Linear Regression" produces low citation counts (8-67 with most under 20). Article lacks sourcing to to establish notability as majority are primary sources with low citation values. Article is poorly written and difficult to follow and per TNT "hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over."  CBS 527 Talk 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When you say it is "poorly written and difficult to follow" is that because of the mathematical notation? I have seen a number of math and physics articles written with more complex math than text, almost like a mathematical proof:  Linear_discriminant_analysis and Uncertainty principle.  With some editors, when I ask if we can simplify the language for lay people, they balk, and say this is simple wikipedia.  I think we should write articles that are accessible, but I'm not aware of any policy that says the articles can't be incomprehensible to ordinary people and only understandable by graduate students of the field. If I am wrong, I would love to see the policy.  I feel like I read it somewhere a long time ago.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean it is written more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. An envelope model in statistics can be described with the majority of the article in text such as Envelope (mathematics). This article seems to exist to promote the research of  Cook, Li and Chiaromonte on Envelope Models for Multivariate Linear Regression which is an example of a statistical envelope model. The majority of the content was taken from . Strangely, Envelope (statistics) has been redirected to this article.
 * As far as comprehension of an article the only policy I can think of that might apply here is WP:NOTEVERYTHING.  CBS 527 Talk 03:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment FYI, this article is written the same way: Sufficient dimension reduction.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This acutally makes me even more suspicous, it has similar authors (of the theories) and is also written by a WP:SPA. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per David Tornheim. Appears to have WP:SIGCOV. We shouldn't punish readers by not covering a topic just because it was written by an editor who did not follow our policies. f  e  minist  03:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep under condition of heavy slim down and simplification. This article seems well sourced (preponderance of specific authors is not really surprising nor a problem in specialist topics) and well structured. However, the level of detail, the inclusiveness, and the argument structure are far too much like a journal article. Have a look at, e.g., the last paragraph of the "Examples" section: that is a worked example using field data, intended to prove applicability, complete with extrapolation of required sample sizes for other SE ranges - dude! Wrong forum! Similarly, the bulk of the article before that develops the entire theory from scratch by proving propositions. Chop this down by 3/4 and we might approach a suitable Wikipedia format for general audiences.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I support tagging the sections/material that have the problems you describe. However, if these are just useful examples, not "proof of concept", then I agree with 's take. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not a statistician, and haven't had the chance to do a detailed WP:BEFORE.  However I understand it, the topic of the article seems like a fairly standard thing that one would like to do in statistics, namely project onto the principal components of a data set that satisfy some (linear) constraints.  The article itself seems well-organized and clearly written.  I (a non-specialist) could understand the first few sections, but not so much the later sections.  I think that is to be expected for articles on technical topics.  It could use an introduction written one or two levels down from where it is now.  I also think examples should be clarifying for typical readers, rather than included as proof-of-concept for more sophisticated readers.  But Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no reason an article cannot have both types of examples.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this also. I don't understand the material well enough to judge; otherwise I would help with these tasks. Thanks for the input. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep article could use work, but that's no reason to blow it up. It needs to be made more encyclopedic and less like a mathematics doctorate, but deleting it seems like a heavy-handed reaction by editors that don't understand what they're reading. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exist, not on content, not on usefulness. At a bare minimum an article needs to meet WP:GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline for notability. Even then an article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia.
 * This article fails to provide reliable and independent source. Eight of the sources are not independent and are primary and authored by R.D.Cook. the other two have just 1 citation, and   which is hardly reliable. A bare google search of "envelope model",, provides zero references to this "envelope model" and almost all of the "scholarly literature" listed on the first 2 pages predates the existence of this envelope model so of course they are useless for verifying the information contained in this article.
 * The sources need to be reliable, and independent and have significant coverage of the topic to establish notability. Neither the article nor any of the searches provided in this AFD appear to meet these requirements. So far none of the keep !votes have provided sources that meet the guidelines for notability that actually references the " envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010..." which is the topic of this article. Our main policy on what can be included in this encyclopedia, WP:NOT, excludes the inclusion of any article that is not verifiable by appropriate references.  CBS 527 Talk 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for the nomination was that the article is too technical to be understandable for a Wikipedia audience, and your own Delete !vote appears to be of the opinion that the article is "poorly written and difficult to follow", and so you appealed to WP:TNT. So this plea to dismiss the Keep votes is a complete red herring, since the Keep votes were in large part responding to the deletion arguments advanced by yourself and the nominator.  Just to reiterate though: it's a technical article, but I do not think it is the case that it is too technical for Wikipedia.
 * I'm rather mystified by your own opinion that there are no independent or reliable sources. Peer-reviewed papers discussing the subject are published in statistics journals of the highest calibre: Journal of the American Statistical Association, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, The Annals of Statistics, Biometrika, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Statistica Sinica. The original paper was cited 61 times (!), many of which in very high quality statistics journals, and most of which are independent secondary sources, meeting the most stringent of standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.  Furthermore, the publications of Cook, clearly a distinguished expert in the area of dimension reduction (look at the citation counts), are also dismissed as inappropriate sources for an encyclopedia article.  But I think these higher quality sources are probably the best in this case.  I also object to the implied idea that, because a certain group of academics seems to consist of experts on a particular subject, that their publications in peer reviewed journals should be dismissed as not independent.  But in any case, it is simply false that there are no sources that are independent of Cook.  Apart from the the envelope method is discussed (briefly) in this review article, and in much more depth in the articles "On the likelihood ratio test for envelope models in multivariate linear regression", JR Schott, Biometrika, 2013; "Near Optimal Prediction from Relevant Components", INGE S. HELLAND, SOLVE SAEBØ, HA˚KON TJELMELAND, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 2012; Supervised singular value decomposition and its asymptotic properties, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Gen Li, Dan Yang, Andrew B. Nobel, Haipeng Shena, 2016.  And many more.  The original 2009 Cook paper was cited 61 times, and the other original papers in this area each cited a few dozen times.  This is clearly an actual topic in statistics for which an encyclopedia article is appropriate.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - although the subject is cited by another group of researchers at Florida, their work is not sufficiently in depth about the subject that the article meets NPOV. The POV of Cook and his co-authors is that the envelope model is what they say it is. While they have created a model they call the envelope model, right now the best we can do is call it "Cook et als envelope model" or something like that. Also, there exists articles on Envelope theorem, Envelope (mathematics), and Ecological forecasting, so if kept, perhaps the article should be moved to Envelope model (statistics) and this page made a redirect to Envelope (disambiguation), or at least a hatnote one or more of those other pages added. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up here, looking through a few of the 61 citations of the 2010 paper, I don't see any that refer to the Envelope model, although they do talk about some of Cook's results. For instance, in Ma, Y., & Zhu, L. (2013). A review on dimension reduction. International Statistical Review, 81(1), 134-150. quite a few of Cook's papers are represented, including the 2010 one, but Envelope is not used. I'm curious if I am wrong here, and the term is used more widely, or if it is more of a neologism? Smmurphy(Talk) 17:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A lot of words but very little content. Either WP:TNT or WP:GNG.  I consider whatever this topic is to be significantly less notable than Envelope system, which has a similar title. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or rename to Envelope (multivariate analysis), if the article can be improved. Power~enwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO I think that moving it is not going to change anything. There have been no edits on this article for the last two weeks and the main issues (relies on single source and too technical) have not been resolved. I'm not an expert in this so there is little I can do other than carry out my WP:NPP responibilities. If users who have a far greater understanding of this are not WP:BOLD then I think we can only either delete or move to draft, either way this shouldn't be in the mainspace. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  10:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was an undergrad math major and can't possibly improve the article due to the topic's obscurity and the low-quality of the current content. The "definition" section currently present is absurd.  Power~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that ignorance of the background of a topic is advanced as a reason for deletion. The definition seems clear enough to me.  The envelope is the minimal $$\Sigma$$-invariant subspace that contains the column space of $$\beta$$.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you're serious. The definition sentence you quote is aggressively unclear. What is $$\Sigma$$? What is $$\beta$$? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As it states quite plainly in the first section of the article, $$\Sigma$$ is the covariance matrix of the error, and $$\beta$$ are the coefficient parameters of the regression. Furthermore, I did not "quote" the article, contrary to your assertion.  The sentence above is my own summary of the subject of the article.  Perhaps, instead of dismissing the subject as too hard for you to understand, you might want to try to read it and understand the topic before commenting critically on it?  Just a suggestion.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article (very poorly) says that this is a specific example of Dimensionality reduction, and almost all the sources are from the authors of the original paper. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)co


 * Weak Keep: With the caveat of major improvements. Does not need to be completely rewritten to meet guidelines and given an (admittedly rather cursory) review of the sources offered here, I think the concept of the "Envelope model" might just meet notability guidelines.  The article should be improved to reflect a broader idea of what an envelope model is and should be simplified to be more accessible to the average reader, otherwise we're giving undue weight.  Waggie (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:TNT, no prejudice against recreating, although I would recommend going through the AfC process. Many of the "keep !votes" even agree that that the article needs improvement. In its present state, it would probably be best to delete and simply start over.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup. If an article didn't need improvement, it would be up for FAC review, not a deletion discussion.  The TNT argument is utterly spurious.  In actuality, all of the TNT arguments here are WP:IDONTLIKEIT.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd say the issue is more about notability than accessibility of content (as noted above the latter is not a prerequisite and could be improved by rewriting). As has been said before (but I believe it bears repeating in view of the turn the discussion took), almost all citations from the article include Cook as an author. Thus I would be included to delete the article as not notable unless people can come up with reasons why it is. A more positive outcome would be to include an extremely thinned rewrite of it as a paragraph in a related statistics article. jraimbau (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as written, the article is WP:TNT. Based on the original paper (and *all* the references are from one of two authors, who have collaborated on several papers), it is both WP:GNG and WP:NOR . I see no reason to keep the article other than that there is enough mathematical mumbo-jumbo to confuse non-technical editors.  After reading the original source, *I* know what most of it means, but I see no way any reader could do so from the article as written. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Independent citations are given above, demonstrating an easy pass of GNG. NOR is not relevant, since these have been published in top journals.  TNT is just IDONTLIKEIT.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * After re-reading WP:NOR, you're absolutely right that it isn't relevant; I thought there was something about "no re-publishing of a single published result" in there as well. I still disagree with your argument on GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Since it seems no admin wants to touch this, here's my assessment of the debate: There's no consensus here on Keep/Delete, and there never will be. There is a consensus that a lot of the article is un-intelligible to everyone involved here. I feel the article must be renamed (to clarify that this is a term in statistics or statistical modeling) if kept, but I don't believe there is a consensus for that. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice against recreation: I don't have enough backgrounds in statistics to tell whether this topic is notable or not. But I do agree there seems to be an issue of COI. The lede contains "The first envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010". The year 2010 is too recent for math, if not for other fields like Internet technologies. It is important to keep Wikipedia free from self-promotions and this argues for the deletion. Sometimes an article is underdeveloped even if the topic is notable. In that case, keep is a better choice. This one is rather overdeveloped in the wrong way; in that case, it's better to better to start over, provided the topic is notable. -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2017 (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.