Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSAV (Methodology)

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PSAV (Methodology)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

PSAV (Methodology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Brand new methodology (made up in the last 6 months). No evidence it is in wide use. Fails the notability standards. Author of article appears to be "inventor" of method, so rather spam-like. Declined prod by original author. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the editor who placed the PROD for the reasons mentioned by QuiteUnusual. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rather self-promotional and needs at least one secondary source to establish some notability, otherwise it is just the subject of a recent research paper.Poltair (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article creator appears to be the "inventor" of this research concept, whose only contributions relates to this article, WP:NOTPROMOTION, at the very least this is WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2019 (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.