Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trice Goyette Technique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. PeaceNT 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trice Goyette Technique

Trice Goyette Technique (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No evidence that this term is in use anywhere (Google returns 0 hits). I can't access the one paper referenced, but I would imagine its author won't have named a technique after themself. Oli Filth 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - I accessed the page, and while I can't figure out what this article has anything to do with the science article referenced, I'll say weak keep on the off chance it's just out of my realm of understanding. -WarthogDemon 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - While I, like WD, am not an expert in this field, I spent a good deal of time looking for references either to it or to Edward Trice and I couldn't find any. If it were an archaic technique some alchemist cooked up in the middle-ages, then I might suppose that it just didn't hit the net. But given that it claims to have been invented in 1993, I'd expect there to be at least one internet article accessible on it. And the article referenced doesn't mention Trice or Goyette that I could see. Douglasmtaylor T/C 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The "Edward Trice" is apparently Ed Trice, see Talk:Ed Trice#A Few Remarks. Goyette is one of the named authors of the paper. However, I see nothing to link Trice to this article (although, to be fair, I can't access the article, so can't see the references). Google turns up nothing for Trice + Goyette, etc. Oli Filth 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
      • "Ah, I didn't search for Ed Trice, but Edward. Thanks for pointing me there. I also re-reviewed the article (all you can read is the abstract, not the paper itself). It makes no mention of Trice, but Randall J. Goyette (who I think may have been our initial contributor here) is listed. There is no mention of the article title and there are other authors listed. I don't claim to understand the article or even the abstract, but my basic feeling is that it's a process that Goyette had a hand in developing, but never became notable. Perhaps an expert will come along and correct us. Until then, the article doesn't assert its notability, so I'm keeping my delete. . .for now. Cheers! Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak keep - The article makes some sence (well at least part of it) and it seems logical, but I've never heard of it and I'm kind of getting the feeling it uses big words to let it slip by.--Kkrouni 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not the content I'm disupting (per se), it's the notability of the term "Trice Goyette Technique". Oli Filth 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The technique may be important, but judging by the search engine (using +Ed +Trice +"Cray-3" -wikipedia) no mention of the technique can be found either. There is a chance that it's some newly developed technique that is known within its own circle, and not even published by academics etc.--Kylohk 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There are no relevant papers in Web of Science by any E. Trice. ; the paper listed by the associate has zero citations since 2004 (and his 3 other papers: 1, 1, and 0) Obviously not of general importance. There was an article about this second author Deodatta V. Shenai-Khatkhate, which was challenged, and then immediately removed by the ed. who inserted it--I've just deleted it as speedy A7. Enough said.DGG (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was able to access the source; the one source in the article doesn't mention Trice at all, nor reference any work by him. If this is called the "Trice-Goyette technique" by some insiders it is not, apparently provable in any written sources that we can see. Mangojuicetalk 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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.