Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterns in multiple-choice tests

Delete as pure OR. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Alberon 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in this case, there would be no reason other than notability for anyone to make the unsourced article. It needs cleaning up, and sourcing, though. digitalemotion 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the two comments above the one above. I don't get the explanation about why this should be kept. It's notable because someone wrote an article? Mandsford 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, appears to violate WP:OR. Cogswobble talk 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally goes against Wikipedia:No original research. Other than helping students cheat (will it really work?), there is no other use for this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cheating forum. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of thing would work great in some of the articles devoted to statistics or human psychological biases, but alone...? No. --136.223.3.130 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR and likely to be pure speculation as well. --Blanchardb 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find any WP:RS, fail WP:OR and WP:N. i agree that some of this info (if sources found) should be merged with other statistical articles. MatthewYeager 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]