Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept Modeling

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. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Modeling

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a concept that appears to lack notability. The sourcing is all to pieces by the creator of the concept, or authored by Michael Cieply, who seems very keen to promote it, or that do not otherwise contribute to showing notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Deadline.com article in 2017 was perhaps a follow-up piece to the NY Times piece done in 2010. That 2017 follow-up piece was, in no doubt, written-because or inspired-by the release of the author's foundational book on concept modeling called "Concerning the Nature and structure of Concept." In other words, this new field of study now had a significant, well regarded book (receiving a 9 out of 10 rating in Publisher Weekly's Booklife Prize as a semi-finalist) thus representing a major step in the slow but steady progress towards concept modeling's broader establishment.

I might note that all other concept-oriented disciplines (concept maps, mind maps, conceptual models --which are all different but related) have also taken years, if not decades, to develop their broader recognition.

The NY Time piece added to The BookLife Prize, semi-finalist recognition of the author's book are significant steps. Lastly the seven years between 2010 and 2017 is not a lot of time to establish overwhelming recognition around such an abstract (even philosophical) oriented topic. The time lapse also suggests that the founder is not so focused on full court promotion during the years in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJamesScott (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 01:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion, verging on WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. A generic title for something that turns out to be much more specific is an early warning sign. Given the material that follows, even if a notability case could be made, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a thing that exists in a way that is clearly distinguishable from conceptual modeling, for which we already have a perfectly fine, well-cited article. BD2412 T 05:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.