Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazy User 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy User Model

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

WP:NRVE Linclark (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient references provided. I'm more than a little concern that this user's first action after registering is to nominate an article for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My first action ever was to remove vandalization from Mike Tomlin's page during one of the Steelers Super Bowls, this is just the first edit I had to create an account for. I was reading up on the Technology Acceptance Model when I found the link to this article. I don't actually do any research in this area but use these theories as reference theories for my Masters research in Semantic Web technologies. This theory simply isn't notable by academic standards.

Strong Keep. I see what looks like coverage in multiple sources in the reflist, and a quick search of Google Scholar reveals six more based on the terms "Lazy User Model" and "Lazy User Theory". While the number of GHits does not assert notability, there seem to be many published, (some peer-reviewed) scholarly papers which refer to the subject of this article to varying degrees. -Addionne (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have significant discussion in scholarly sources, for example this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think it fails WP:NRVE, it has sufficient references and it's notable enough for inclusion. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be quite appropriate and notable with necessary references. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a coi tag to the article for the duration of this AfD. A major contributor is Mikc75, whose username implies he could be Mikael Collin, the writer of two of the papers used as refs in the article, and owner of two of four external links (now removed for irrelevance). That said, I do not think this affects the notability of the article - just maybe means that some of the refs used were selected over others for that reason.

Comment - It's not a BLP, so I don't think that the supposed author of one of the references editing the article is necessarily a conflict of interest. The COI guideline basically says it's okay as long as it's not used for purposes detrimental to Wikipedia. I don't really see any evidence of an edit war or POV pushing so I think it's okay. I'd personally suggest removing the COI tag. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I agree for the most part, however in this case, his paper is the originator of the theory... That said, I'll remove the tag, since the COI is declared here, and this looks like a pretty clear SNOW KEEP anyway. -Addionne (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search in Google Scholar for lazy user theory, you see that there are only 4 papers which come up. Only one of these has citations, and it only has two. The minimum for notability that is generally accepted in the academic community is 6. This paper hasn't had any significant impact on the academic community and the Wikipedia article was posted by the author of the original paper. If this article is kept, then any research paper should have its own Wikipedia page. Linclark (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2010 (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.