Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd model

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

This is pure nonsense. There is no such model. Btyner (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsensical from a mathematical point of view. No evidence of notability. I deleted some of the more ridiculous content from the article, but the whole thing seems to be a pile of bullshit firmly fitting under WP:ONEDAY. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Utter nonsense. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty close to a G3 speedy deletion. I know what goes up must come down, but what does the gravitational constant have to do with a financial model? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Null and Boyd, or as a Brooklyner would say, "It's strictly for da Boyds." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a hoax. Two of the cited sources are not freely available online, so I have not checked them. Agyle (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, though I wouldn't be as harsh as some of the comments here. The article seems to have been originally written by User:Mathspostgrad and may be part of his research. The nonsense may have come in later. There are also several references to the Boyd Model in Google Scholar in unrelated fields. So this might perhaps be a case of applying a somewhat obscure model from another discipline to financial theory. But still non-notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be at least a couple dozen Boyd models mentioned in scientific literature (the Harris-Boyd model in chemistry, Sartor and Boyd model for water treatment, Henrich and Boyd model in evolutionary psychology, Prescott and Boyd model in economics, Keider-Boyd model of plasma surface radiation, etc.) It's a very fair point that it might be legit, even if it's not verifiable. But to me the article, from its inception, looks like buzzword-laden bullshit, the sort of near-gibberish generated by programs like SCIgen that's gets published in academic literature. One detail that increases my skepticism is the author's use of the "Dalweska-Boyd constant"; "Dalweska-Boyd" occurs in google only in two copies of this web page; not in any books, scholar.google.com, or any other web pages, and even searching for pages with both "Dalweska" and "Boyd" separately only returns one more search result. Another detail that makes my left eyelid twitch is that a formula dealing with valuation of illiquid securities would incorporate the universal gravitational constant 6.674*10^-11 m³/kg-s²...I mean a lot of the rest of the formula is hard to swallow, but this seems almost like a taunt, "how ridiculous can I make this and still not be questioned?" Agyle (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may have been a little too gullible, but we're both agreed on delete whichever version of the article we look at. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including G kind of gives it away. James^x12345 13:25, 23 May 2014 (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.