Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclectic probability
- 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 Snow delete. —« ANIMUM » 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eclectic probability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unsourced article that makes rather extravagant claims. Unless these can be backed up this article should be removed.--Cronholm144 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original essay. The term is unused. BTW the article doesn't have an author! `'Miikka 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Dan Gluck 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete iNic 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as apparent original research. Someguy1221 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dan Gluck. --YbborTalk 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research in absence of verifiable attribution. Even if it were not, its non notable for lack of evidence of any serious usage. Neologism. --soum talk 14:19, 2 July 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.