Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Usage model

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

Article is premature; its creator translated it from a German page, and later nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it should wait until others had a chance to write about the subject in secondary sources, as currently (2017) it was novel, and secondary sources had not had a chance. The German article was subsequently deleted, and with no offence to our German colleagues, standards of notability tend to be higher here, so it is dubious here too. Most of what I can find that quotes the current primary literature sources is written by the author of the primary literature, self-citing, and I'm not convinced that this has evolved into something notable. But it's outside my field, so I accept I may be completely wrong. Elemimele (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A follow-up: so far as I can make out, the German article was written by describing recent work/ideas published by a colleague at the university of Wuppertal, and immediately translated by her for the English Wikipedia. It was almost immediately deleted from German WP on the grounds similar to TOSOON, and to do JudithHill justice, she fully endorsed this decision, supporting the German deletion. I see it as an accident that the simultaneous deletion of the English version got forgotten. I don't think the concepts that her colleague, Sigmund Schimanski, developed have become sufficiently notable for an English article, though it's hard to tell from simple Googling as the phrase is so non-specific. A new German article hasn't been written, so presumably either JudithHill is no longer interested, or feels she has too much COI to write it. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - this seems to be based on a small number (3, if I've counted correctly) of recent articles by one person. It isn't clear to me if this "usage model" is really a thing or not, but I agree with the TOOSOON determination. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Leaving aside the claims about the corresponding de.wiki article, the only usage of usage model seems to be by one research team in three articles. This does not demonstrate that the term has entered scholarly discourse. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 30 January 2022 (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.