Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stratified multi criteria decision making


 * 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. The consensus is that it is too soon for an article about the topic at this time, as information about its lasting significance and overall notability is still unclear. Mz7 (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Stratified multi criteria decision making

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable new method in decision making. The article identifies the topic's origin as 2016; there are no independent sources from 2016 or later showing the significance or importance of the method. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: Hi Fred. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for the comment. Just to resolve a misunderstanding. The 2016 paper is a different paper and is not the first proposal of the method, namely stratified multi criteria decision making method. The method has just been proposed and published a few weeks ago in a well reputed scholarly journal and it is normal that the significance importance of the method has not yet discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weighting judgement criteria, I'm unsure whether notability/Lasting can be satisfied, but in any case it's a unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK. C.Fred, do you have any particular issue with it being a redirect (just wanted to check, as it probably means I missed something)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Nosebagbear: I'm not convinced that the term is a likely enough search to be useful as a redirect. I would prefer outright deletion, but if the community prefers a delete-and-redirect or merge,-keep-history,-and-redirect outcome, I have no objections. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: Fred, Thanks for this. Your comment shows that you are knowledgeable about the general versions of Multiple-criteria decision analysis which is really good. You are right about the fact that Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weightings of judgement criteria, but they do not consider transition probabilities in the process of computing the weightings of judgment criteria. The Stratified multi criteria decision making  proposes obtaining and considering the transition probabilities in the decision making process — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Just been chatting to Rajabi689 on the talk page (invited him here), but the following source was offered: Knowledge-Based Systems Journal article on the topic, which is worth considering. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Hi Fred and Nosebagbear. Thank you for the points that you have highlighted.


 * I understand that the method, Stratified multi criteria decision making, has not been well applied yet, but this is because it is like a newborn baby. It has been published only three weeks ago and needs time to grow. It usually takes at least 6 months until the first applications are published in reputed journals.


 * Re: The 2016 paper is a different paper and is not the first proposal of the method. The method has just been proposed a few weeks ago. Based on a theory, Concept of Stratification (CST) proposed in 2016, this new method of Multiple-criteria decision analysis has been accepted and published by a leading journal in July 2018.Before this date, there is no sign of stratified multi criteria decision making method. However, after six months, gradually the first applications of this method will be published.


 * Multiple-criteria decision analysis already includes weightings of judgement criteria, correct, but it does not include the uncertainty in weightings of judgment criteria. This method brings a new insight to Multiple-criteria decision analysis by suggesting the consideration of transition probabilities and a combination of situations that may happen in the near future to assign weightings of importance to criteria. Because of the novelty of the approach and the new insight that it brings to the process of assigning weightings for criteria, it has been accepted and published by a top journal. Otherwise, this journal https://www.journals.elsevier.com/knowledge-based-systems or journals at similar levels do not publish any ordinary method without significant contribution.


 * It will become a popular method. This is because the method has been published in a top journal after several revisions, Knowledge Based Systems https://www.journals.elsevier.com/knowledge-based-systems


 * This journal is not just a journal. It has high indexes: Impact factor: 4.5 and SNIP 2.6 and has been indexed by SCOPUS, ISI ABDC list, among others. In addition it is a top ranked journal in Elsevier and also in SJR ranking system with the CiteScore of 5.11


 * I hope that you can keep the method for a while and monitor the number of people reading opening the page.


 * Here is a link to this newly published method: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705118303502


 * P.S I have included some revisions on the page and it is becoming better and better. Please keep it for a while and you will see that more and more people will refer the page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Rajabi, as I said on the talk page, we can't just sit around waiting for additional sources, otherwise wikipedia could never have any articles removed, see this policy - WP:TOOSOON.  The number of people reading is also irrelevant for judging its quality as a source, but the other details may be. You also can't say that the method will become popular (and thus get more written about) just because it has appeared there - it's not something that can be proved.


 * As to the differences between this and weighted multiple criteria, if expanded upon that might function as an argument to change to Merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was considering withdrawing my nomination until I saw Rajabi689's comment that this method was proposed mere weeks ago. I don't see how any scholarly analysis of the method can have been done by independent researchers in that short window of time. Accordingly, I'm sticking with the nomination, echoing the WP:TOOSOON concern, and adding concerns that the Wikipedia article could have been created as a platform to make the method more well-known. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you can consider allowing the page to remain in Wikipedia, taking into account the provided example below and the reputation of the publishing journal. Rajabi689 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC) ''
 * Hi Nosebagbear, Yes, You are right. Your concerns are reasonable and valid.

This new method, unlike the existing Multiple-criteria decision analysis, considers transition probabilities in the process of computing the weightings of criteria.
 * The difference of this 2018 method with previous Multiple-criteria decision analysis 


 * Here is a very simple example:
 * Imagine that a person wants to rent a room and has the following criteria: location, budget, and the floor area of the house. If this person assigns single weighting of importance to each criterion and scores to the options with respect to each criterion, the best option can be selected using a range of existing Multiple-criteria decision analysis methods.


 * However, there are cases where the person considers some possible events, likely to happen in the near future, such as the likelihood of his girlfriend, for example, moving in, buying a pet, selling his vehicle, getting a loan, receiving a promotion. In each of these situation, the person may have different weightings of importance to assign to the criteria. SMCDM method considers the weightings of importance of the criteria associated with the probability of those events occurring and compute the value of each options, so that the option with the highest value is selected. Through this, the multiple criteria methods become more reliable and robust. Using the provided figure, previous methods compute the weightings in only state k (shown by Wk) or the current situation, but this method considers a combination of situations associated with the relevant transition probabilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Editing Overload! - Hi Rajabi, just a request, please limit your edits on any single comment - C.Fred and I have each received 33 pings on our watchlists for just two points. Remember you can always write, preview, tweak, preview again and post. You'll frequently see several posts from us as we make mistakes or realise we've forgotten something, but try and keep it reasonably low. Nosebagbear (talk)

Hi, Sure. Trying to improve, didn't know that you might receive notifications. Noted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, a case of WP:OR (with WP:COI), in addition to WP:TOOSOON, what is telling is "not the first proposal of my method, namely stratified multi criteria decision making method." from the article creator 1st response above. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC) : article creator has changed their words of their 1st response, and my quote, they dont know not to change other editors words.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I explain why it should not be deleted, especially in response to the deletion suggestion above.
 * Keep!!!

First: you said that it is not an original research. Why is that so? What are your reasons? This is not true and the proof is its publication in a leading journal. It is an original research published in highly ranked journal with the impact factor of 4.5 by the most reputed publisher, ELSEVIER. They do not publish non-original research. There is no multi criteria decision making method that can take into account the transition probabilities in computing weightings of the criteria except this one, namely the stratified multi criteria decision making method, which has been published a few weeks ago (not in 2016!!!).

Second: Unfortunately you did not read the conversation properly. This is probably because you are busy and have to read many comments every day and I understand. I explain again the summary: Fred said that the first application of the method was in 2016, and since then there is no further application. I said, '''the 2016 paper is not the first proposal of the method. That 2016 paper does not have anything to do with multiple criteria decision making methods'''.

The 2016 paper proposes a concept (concept of stratification) which has been used to propose the multi criteria decision making model (2018). The method, namely the stratified multi criteria decision making method, has been proposed and published for the first time in July 2018. Your decision is not correct and moreover your reasons are not supportive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The very first sentence of the article is an admission that this is too soon. The !vote above, with its insistence that the method was "proposed and published for the first time in July 2018", makes a very good case for deletion (albeit inadvertently). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep Yes, now what you say is sensible. It is early for this method. I agree as it is quite newly published. I will suggest it again a year later. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajabi689 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (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.