Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D-CMCC-CNR 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3D-CMCC-CNR model

[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)

Not notable. No significant in-depth coverage in independent sources, all sources describing it in detail are authored by people connected to the project. Pontificalibus 17:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Robert McClenon who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I may have made a mistake in accepting this one, because I either overlooked or wasn't aware of the self-publication issue. I will explain that I generally accept scientific subjects, which should be additions to human knowledge, and Wikipedia seeks to summarize human knowledge, unless there appears to be a self-serving motive. (For instance, I always reject autobiographies, including of scientists, and am currently involved in an ugly deletion dispute about an autobiography of a scientist.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell from a Google Scholar search, this model has received minimal attention and papers which use and/or describe the model have paltry citation counts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 13 February 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.