Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spheroprobability


 * 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. Sean William @ 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spheroprobability

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Google brings up precisely one hit - a citation of a paper by the apparent coiner of the phrase. I don't claim to know or dispute whether the content of this article is valid; however, I am challenging the notability of the term. Oli Filth 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources to which to attribute notability. Half the linked sources are WP:COI. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as possible fringe theory. Thin Arthur 08:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the author of this article (User:Scarbrtj) is T.J. Scarbrough, the guy who coined this term; see Talk:Spheroprobability. This falls foul of WP:OR.  Oli Filth 09:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dhartung and nom. --Aarktica 17:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not fringe theory, rather it appears to be the medical and engineering application of the statistical concept of "Sphere of Probability" (a 3 dimensional version of Circle of Probability) to improve medical radiation therapy for cancer by decreasing the probabilistic error in aiming and focusing the radiation beam(s) at the cancerous tissue in the body.  Sphereofprobability has been published in peer reviewed journals, and the author is not the only person involved.  He was one of an eight member team in one article, and not part of another.  No COI here. The author was up front with his involvement and is not pushing this. I think it barely passes the notability test (within the medical community, if not the greater one) and it has verifiable and reputable references, so it's not OR. BTW, the number of Google hits are not necessarily an indication of notability, especially in the academic/scientific arena, as many potential sites are behind subscription/membership walls. Keep as per WP:HEY also. — Becksguy 18:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the term "spheroprobability" can only be referenced to a single conference paper (I'm not even sure if it's that). If there are other papers that use the term, by all means correct me.  As I said at the outset, it's not the content of this article that I'm concerned about (I'm sure it's all scientifically sound), it's the notability of the term "spheroprobability".  If an author introduces a WP article on a neologism that they have coined, but cannot be sourced elsewhere, then that is OR.  Oli Filth 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please time extend this discussion a bit. — Becksguy 23:42, 19 August 2007 (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.