Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SurvCART algorithm

Response from Creator
Fine, go ahead and delete. Note that the SurvCART algorithm is published. Definitely, Wikipedia is important source to disseminate research, but note that this is not the only avenue. Please go ahead, and delete if you feel appropriate.

I have also noticed that you have removed the Survival Tree page where I listed all the available survival tree algorithms fairly. If there is something unfair you could have raised to me or edit that. Instead it was removed. Very pathetic, and I don't appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is specifically not supposed to be a place to disseminate new research. - MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment that the Wikipedia is not place for the latest research. The link you shared does not talk about anything "dissemination". However, it talks about Self-Promotion which states

''Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.''

Maintain a neutral point of view: I described the all the available methods in this domain. So now there is total of 9 citations. I hope this would make feel you better about the neutrality. There is nothing in that article that express biased view towards the proposed algorithm.

Creating overly abundant links: Only 2 out of 9 links are of mine.

Therefore, I don't think any of it is Self Promotion applies to my contribution unless you specifically pointed out to me and give me chance to prove you wrong. I am afraid that you are just arguing for the sake of the argument without looking into and/or understanding the content.

Surprisingly, I see that my "Survival Tree" page you have removed with about ~20 citations (of which only 2 were mine) was removed. Moreover, I noticed that once I challenged your removal of my contribution of "Survival Tree" page, you immediately flagged SurvCART algorithm. It feels like quite a "Retaliation" and I don't think Wikipedia promote such endeavor. Please don't misuse Wikipedia as a show of strength to remove any contribution as you wish. Please be driven by rationality which is seriously missing in your response/action. Please assign to some of your superior or colleagues to avoid Retaliation resulting in lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We need reliable, independently written sources that are actually about the topic of the article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You have raised good points, and here is my response to your points:

Reliable source: The source is https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11539 which is a peer-reviewed article published in a respected Wiley journal (not an open access). Therefore, reliability cannot be questioned.

Independently written sources: The Self-Promotion clause does not restrict the researcher to write about they topic they work on. It says "to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects" but this is not equivalent to restricting the researcher to write about their topic. The most important part is to "maintain a neutral point of view" which is there in the article as all other competing methods are cited. Please let me know if any specific lines or sentences in the article that you feel violates neutrality, and I will be happy to remove or revise that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm just telling you what the deletion policy is. I can tell you from experience that you're not going to get far arguing that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly says. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes - you are correct that I am "not going to get far arguing" because you don't have the attitude to understand and/or you are ego-driven. But still I will continue to justify my case. The deletion policy states that

'' Reliable means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'' -- I already mentioned the work is based on peer-reviewed work. So the work is reliable.

'' Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.'' -- The work is not related to any advertising, press releases, and autobiographies. It's a plain science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I have just put the article on the Dispute Resolution Board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#SurvCART_algorithm. Please refrain from deletion of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madanstat (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)