| Revision as of 01:45, 5 May 2007 editFahrenheit451 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,109 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:41, 5 May 2007 edit undoYellowbeard (talk | contribs)220 edits strong deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''weak keep''' The first of those at least using the term in the title. ''']''' 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''weak keep''' The first of those at least using the term in the title. ''']''' 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' This criteria is notable and appears cited frequently on the rangevoting.org website and is NOT original research.--] 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' This criteria is notable and appears cited frequently on the rangevoting.org website and is NOT original research.--] 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website resp. to a link that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. ] 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:41, 5 May 2007
Favorite betrayal criterion
- Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete. Original research. Vanity. See here. 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 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yellowbeard, your statements are not cited. FYI, Ossipoff devised the FBC criteria so it follows there would be some mention. There is no vanity there, I don't know where you get that. OR? Hardly.--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Something literally made up in school one day. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - User appears to have established beginning basis for verifiability in external links, instead of using cite formatting in a potential References section. Smee 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
- weak keep The first of those at least using the term in the title. DGG 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This criteria is notable and appears cited frequently on the rangevoting.org website and is NOT original research.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website resp. to a link that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. Yellowbeard 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)