Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination)
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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
original research. see here. Yellowbeard 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Original research" is an outright falsehood. This is a notable criterion that can be found in articles on the internet.--Fahrenheit451 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as repost of deleted article. (Or so I assume since I can't see the first.) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is an established voting method criterion.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's it used? I'm not familiar with it (which I recognize is no reason to keep or to delete). -- BPMullins | Talk 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you follow the links in the article. Also, just do a websearch.--Fahrenheit451 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's it used? I'm not familiar with it (which I recognize is no reason to keep or to delete). -- BPMullins | Talk 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Multiple reliable secondary sources exist. See [1]. These various voting criteria are discussed in serious, academic circles, and are characteristic of an emergent academic field with increasing publications with time. The article should be expanded. SmokeyJoe 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until a good reason is cited for deletion. Give the article some time to develop. Edit: for what it's worth, regarding the previous AfD, "Voting Matters" isn't worth the paper it isn't published on. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources added by Fahrenheit451, which shows that this is not OR (and probably no longer a repost of a previously-deleted article, so G4 doesn't apply anymore). -- Black Falcon 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All links refer directly or indirectly to Mike Ossipoff. This criterion isn't discussed in "serious, academic circles". This criterion is not notable. Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication. Furthermore, this article is a repost of a previously-deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:19, 17 March 2007 (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.