| Revision as of 05:49, 17 March 2007 editBlack Falcon (talk | contribs)83,746 edits keep per added sources (not OR)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:19, 17 March 2007 edit undoYellowbeard (talk | contribs)220 edits strong deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''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.'' ]<small> (] | ])</small> 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''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.'' ]<small> (] | ])</small> 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per the sources added by ], which shows that this is not OR (and probably no longer a repost of a previously-deleted article, so G4 doesn't apply anymore). -- ] 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per the sources added by ], which shows that this is not OR (and probably no longer a repost of a previously-deleted article, so G4 doesn't apply anymore). -- ] 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''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. ] 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:19, 17 March 2007
Favorite betrayal criterion
- 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)
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)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Strong Keep This is an established voting method criterion.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- I suggest you follow the links in the article. Also, just do a websearch.--Fahrenheit451 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- keep Multiple reliable secondary sources exist. See . 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)