Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-ary Topsis


 * 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! 05:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

N-ary Topsis

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I’ve checked this article and found several issues. I'm requesting to delete this article, and I don't suggest merging because of the following reasons:

(1)	There is an article for TOPSIS method already. Why do we need another article for a small extension on the TOPSIS method? For example, there is a page for Analytic hierarchy process. Should we have a page for the “Pair-wise comparisons analytic hierarchy process”?

(2)	This is a clear case of self-promotion on Wikipedia (user name = author's name of the primary reference). Also, Similarity-based-TOPSIS has been deleted recently because of self-promotion issue: Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS

(3)	There are not enough independent references, and it cannot pass the notability factor of Wikipedia.

(4)	This article is hard to read and has no value for the readers. The structure of the article is like an academic paper. Also, there are so many extensions to the TOPSIS method which are more valuable than this small extension. Scholartop (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial merge (as in, a single or possibly a couple sentences) to TOPSIS. I agree that a standalone article is in no way indicated. Functionally there's a single reference (Luuka) and the rest is padding for ancillary information. However, notability does not apply within an article, only at the article level, and it seems topical as a mention. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The self-promotion is obvious in this article. Hence, my suggestion is delete.Narges 2020 (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist, editors advocating Merge, Delete and Delete/Redirect, more opinions would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete to stamp the self-promotion out of the page history, and then redirect to TOPSIS if desired. Writing a new sentence there from scratch, if we decide a mention is warranted, would be cleaner than trying to salvage the least bad part of text that should not have been added in the first place. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete as self-promotional and unnecessary; it could possibly be redirected as a very brief statement at TOPSIS, but that's optional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 16:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.