Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napping (method of data collection)


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 02:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Napping (method of data collection)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is what appears to be a research paper that is written in the first person. I'm not sure if there even is a category for deletion? Also there isn't much context. Gilded Snail (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. No reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search yielded the following reliable sources, all secondary for napping:
 * Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science
 * Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training
 * Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization
 * Possibly less reliable but still secondary are and . Napping is also called projective mapping in the food sensory field. Multiple independent in-depth RS show that the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article has some problems: it is written with the casual we and has too many references to a J. Pagès, that might indicate some reference padding and/or a non-neutral POV. But fixing these problems is a matter of ordinary editing and not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and WP:SURMOUNTABLE article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't think to check for sources when I first tagged this for deletion. However, I have to notice that in a couple of the sources you provided, napping is referred to as "Napping®", seeming to suggest that the more vague term of projective mapping might work better. I found a source that mentions that napping was introduced by a specific person and is an application of projective mapping. Perhaps this could be merged with sensory analysis? Gilded Snail (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisted per new sources presented in the discussion.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Delete and Redirect WP:TNT. This article seems to be a very discrete promotion of the SensoMineR and FactoMineR software. Napping appears to be a registered trademark, see. (Even though it is part of the title, the Wikipedia guideline says that the ® symbol should not be used in the citation.) Napping is a brand name for an application of boolean set mapping. This current article needs WP:TNT, the only thing salvageable are some of the citations. There is not even a decent definition of the methodology. The methodology seems to be to ask the participants to subjectively arrange food/drink product icons on a two-dimensional surface according to perceived but unstated relationships and then to apply homographic analysis to the results. I guess the best redirect would be sensory analysis as suggested by editor Gilded Snail. I added the doi to a couple of citations in the article in order to make locating the abstracts easier. --Bejnar (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Should napping deserve its own section within sensory analysis or would this just be a simple redirect? Since the presence of sources is making me think this could definitely have at least a brief description. Thoughts? Gilded Snail (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably a small separate section. Other than the definition, I don't see much, unless one gets into the math which is really beyond the concept of "napping". --Bejnar (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but I agree there are major issues with the current version (Aug 1 2014) of the article. Looks research-paper-ish; lacks context, such that someone who does not know much about consumer research would become quickly lost when trying to read this article. Further, the article title may be better switched to 'The Napping Procedure' or something better, since the term 'napping' is so close to more commonly understood mini-sleeps. There is a source here, plus this one, maybe this one too, plus others above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the current options seem to be "delete and redirect" or "keep and modify", is it worth keeping considering that napping is a brand name? I agree that there's definitely sources to back all this up and that the information herein is probably useful, but it might be easier to just condense it to a section in sensory analysis. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I acknowledge per the links provided that this is a real thing, but in the context of this article, I think that WP:TNT applies, as it's so far from being an encyclopædia article that it would be easier to start from scratch. I wouldn't have an objection to another article on the same topic being written, or content on this concept being incorporated in other articles.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete- Unencyclopedic and no reliable sources per search.--Canyouhearmenow 12:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merged Any salvageable content from this page has been moved over to sensory analysis. Will include the citations from this deletion discussion over in that section. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not good practice to try to force a particular conclusion by merging material before consensus has been reached. In fact there is a consensus against merging before we are done; see WP:EDITATAFD the last point: Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes. Please undo this. I still stand by my keep recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Undid. Sorry about that. Gilded Snail (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries. I have made the same mistake at previous AfDs. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2014 (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.