Talk:Alpha-beta model

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted from this draft on 20 June 2019 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

Engineering

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles

Reviewer Note

This draft appears to satisfy notability. After one week of review there has been no criticism, so this draft will be accepted into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-beta Model is a spam article

I have copied this from my talk page. This is no a valid article and is just spam to support the authors own citations. NeedsGlasses (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeedsGlasses. I wonder if you might take another look at Alpha-beta model, which you redirected to Crack growth equation last month. I know nothing about the topic, so can't quibble with your rationale, but the redirect has resulted in a situation where the article isn't mentioned at the page to which it now points. As such, if someone searches for "Alpha-beta model" they're left with no indication of its meaning. Do you think it's possible to add a mention to the target to rectify that, or alternatively if there's an alternative target that would resolve that issue (Paris' law was suggested at the 2019 AfD)? If not, I wonder if it'd be best to restore the article and send it back to AfD to see if there's now a consensus for deleting it outright. Either way, interested to know what you think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arms & Hearts, I'm afraid mentioning the model in the crack growth equation page would be giving it notoriety it does not deserve. Alpha-beta is a generic modelling term so I am quite confident that 100 % of those searching for it are not looking for a crack growth model anyway. There are many many many thousands of crack growth models. Judging by the quality of the article (even the meaningless name which is just the name of two arbitrary coefficients that could be called anything) puts this one near the bottom of the pile (and I am being kind in saying near). No it has nothing to do with the Paris equation so it would be quite wrong to mention it there. No the article should not be restored. It was entirely spam citation by one author and should never have been approved in the first place. Asking for deletion will just open it up for those who have no vested interest in the subject to 'kick the tyres'. I can see no way that will satisfy everyone. Perhaps changing the redirect to point to the disambiguation page would be better. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm wary of the argument that we should avoid another AfD because the consensus might not be to our liking – consensus is how we do things; it's not perfect but, even when article topics are very technical, it's usually possible in my experience to make a compelling case (as indeed you've done above). But retargeting to the disambiguation page is an interesting idea too. Do you have any idea if any of the other items listed there – I suppose the most obvious would be alpha–beta pruning, alpha-beta transformation and/or alpha beta filter – are ever known as "alpha-beta model"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Be bold is also how we do things :) AfD is entirely up to you to instigate. I know nothing more about the alpha beta pages. I think the disambiguation page should be called Alpha-beta. There is a redirect from Alpha-beta to Alphabeta but this is the wrong way around. I don't know how to fix this. the term 'model' is sufficiently vague as to apply to pruning/transformation/filter as a generic term as well as leaving scope for more. Arbitrarily setting one page to alpha-beta model given the number of references to alpha-beta (in the wild but not so many in wikipedia) would be also be wrong. It encourages hijacking of common use terms. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like retargeting to the dab page is the best solution then. I'll go ahead and do that. If you think that page should be moved, probably best to follow the steps at WP:RSPM, or alternatively WP:RM#TR if you're sure the move would be uncontroversial. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)