Deletion of Envelope model

Comment: WP:TNT - Fails . Title is misleading - "envelope modeling" is used in multiple fields, for instance weather predicting. Article focuses on "Multivariate Linear Regression Model." A google scholar search for "envelope modeling" doesn't show the MLR Model on the first two pages. Searching "Envelope model Efficient Multivariate Linear Regression"{{cite web|title=(See Here)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Envelope+model%22+Efficient+Multivariate+Linear+Regression&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47}} produces low citation counts (8-67 with most under 20). Article lacks sourcing to to establish notability as majority are primary sources with low citation values. Article is poorly written and difficult to follow and per TNT "hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I am not a statistician, and haven't had the chance to do a detailed .  However I understand it, the topic of the article seems like a fairly standard thing that one would like to do in statistics, namely project onto the principal components of a data set that satisfy some (linear) constraints.  The article itself seems well-organized and clearly written.  I (a non-specialist) could understand the first few sections, but not so much the later sections.  I think that is to be expected for articles on technical topics.  It could use an introduction written one or two levels down from where it is now.  I also think examples should be clarifying for typical readers, rather than included as proof-of-concept for more sophisticated readers.  But Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no reason an article cannot have both types of examples
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Agree with nom that  implies . Article is horribly confusing and reads like an advanced mathematical paper. As such, not suitable for inclusion. All sources seem to be written by the same person so doubt it passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:COI||WP:GNG)

Comment: With the caveat of major improvements.  Does not need to be completely rewritten to meet guidelines and given an (admittedly rather cursory) review of the sources offered here, I think the concept of the "Envelope model" might just meet notability guidelines.  The article should be improved to reflect a broader idea of what an envelope model is and should be simplified to be more accessible to the average reader, otherwise we're giving |undue weight
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: re|David Tornheim}} I think that allowing works that do not adhere to Wikipedia standards (especially ) by allowing them to skip fC|Articles for Creation is a dangerous precedent. I need some time to review the links and information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:A)

Comment: per David Tornheim. Appears to have . We shouldn't punish readers by not covering a topic just because it was written by an editor who did not follow our policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: A lot of words but very little content.  Either  or .  I consider whatever this topic is to be significantly less notable than Envelope system, which has a similar title
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:GNG)

Comment: as per , no prejudice against recreating, although I would recommend going through the AfC process. Many of the "keep !votes" even agree that that the article needs improvement. In its present state, it would probably be best to delete and simply start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: as written, the article is .  Based on the original paper (and *all* the references are from one of two authors, who have collaborated on several papers), it is both  and . I see no reason to keep the article other than that there is enough mathematical mumbo-jumbo to confuse non-technical editors.  After reading the original source, *I* know what most of it means, but I see no way any reader could do so from the article as written
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:GNG||WP:NOR)