Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to predict US vetoes
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Violence and evolutionary psychology (AfD discussion) and Sociobiological analysis of rape (AfD discussion).
Original research, not appropriate for Wikipedia. The disclaimer at the top, strangely, seems to ask for the article to be AfD'd. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What a great article! which should be hosted ELSEWHERE on the net - this is original independant research, not reviewed, conjecture and heavily POV influenced. but its pretty good! bjrobinson
- Delete: It sure seems to be part of someone's political science paper in college, and I read the disclaimer as kind of indicating that. I hope he cut and pasted the stuff back by now, because the article is going to be righteously deleted. Geogre 12:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that 80.33.212.189 (talk · contribs) (80.58.4.170 is just the IP address of the back end of xyr HTTP proxy.) has now given us three original research articles, all with the same "I'm writing this here so that you can see it in the 5 days that it takes to delete articles." preface at the top. Uncle G 12:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it violates WP:NOR. Someone sign this kid up for a Blogger account.--Isotope23 15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the disclaimer at the top, which clearly states that the contributor has no illusions that this "article" belongs in an encyclopedia, surely all three of these can be speedy deleted as G7 (author request). —Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Good OR is still OR. This deserves hosting somewhere else on the Web. Durova 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't even think it's good OR. The author fits the number of vetoes (he doesn't say whether he means cumulative number, or number in a given year) to an unmotivated empirical curve that predicts the number will eventually go negative, and in which he uses the term "log" without specifying whether it's natural log or base-10 log. The reader is apparently supposed to divine some political message from all this, but what it is is very unclear. --Trovatore 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not encyclopedic. --DanielCD 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suggest that similar contributions from him in the future, be speedily deleted, as he is gaming the system. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not just OR, but OR with some sort of agenda. Agree with Kjkolb that similar contributions be speedily deleted. Jasmol 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was first posted on Everything2 and apparently copied here by the author. It was appropriate there, but not here. Encourage the author to edit United States and the United Nations and Israel and the United Nations in an NPOV fashion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as speedily as possible. Can't this be considered vandalism or something for convenience's sake? — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another essay from this person. Yet another violation of WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOR -- in fact, these are starting to break other policies, as that disclaimer is borderline on CSD G7, and if this keeps up, WP:POINT could be violated as well! This, like all the others, needs to go. Anyone else think these AfDs could be merged? Wcquidditch | Talk 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Personal essays violate NOR. HGB 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (but agree with above advice to expand United States and the United Nations to cover use of vetoes). BD2412 T 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- On deletion. Sorry if this post comes too late (I didn't know the authors could discuss their own possibilities.) Firstly some concern about the funny speech from Trovatore~~ 1_Cummulative vs relative data? Can it be so hard to decide, even if the text insists with contumacy that vetoed proposals per year, among a total of n=206 instances, occur at a given percentage? 2_Logarithm base? When reading 'log', and not 'ln', the base is usually decimal in nature, as can be seen here, this reference being evidently NPOV (otherwise it couldn't be there.) 3_Unmotivated regression curve? Don't forget it has been obtained after deep meditation, which involves stochastical methods in order to find out the best function fitting to data pool. 4_Very unclear political message? I wonder, when things result as dark as you say, if it actually does exist. Lastly something about encyclopoedic nuances ~~ (.../...)
- OK, way off topic, but no, you didn't read the Logarithm article carefully enough. There are (at least) two competing conventions, and the author didn't say which was being used. As for "deep meditation", I don't reject that out of hand as a source of knowledge, but it's hard to source it in an article. Also, maybe the author needs to see his guru and get his mantra adjusted, if the one he's got has him predicting negative vetoes sooner or later. --Trovatore 23:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pavorous neutrality is hitting again, isn't it?~~ May I suggest either of the following ways to solve the negative vetoes' dilemma? Negative veto = positive vote; or negative veto = singularity. Even the best, more reputated mathematical models have some pathological behavior when applied to certain domains. Whichever it is the chosen way, your immaculate NPOV will be preserved. HerMan. 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, way off topic, but no, you didn't read the Logarithm article carefully enough. There are (at least) two competing conventions, and the author didn't say which was being used. As for "deep meditation", I don't reject that out of hand as a source of knowledge, but it's hard to source it in an article. Also, maybe the author needs to see his guru and get his mantra adjusted, if the one he's got has him predicting negative vetoes sooner or later. --Trovatore 23:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On deletion (.../...). In this particular article there are verifiable, massive data emphasizing certain policies that could be historically relevant. Why to waste such encyclopoedic knowledge by deleting the entire node? I thing to have understood that everybody here can edit whichever it's the article they decide. Obviously you had my permission to do it with mine. But you are reluctant because of your restrained policy, or something whose goal I'm not able of reaching. Thus, the point now is: should it be feasible to modify the node as aseptically as possible? I mean, a few words and a link to E2?. If not, and it's nuked, I'd like to be guaranteed that it never will be re-edited without my consent. Many thanks in advance. HerMan. 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- If I'm understanding you correctly, that means that if it gets deleted, you request this to be protected from recreation? Not sure if AfD is the right place to bring that up... Wcquidditch | Talk 23:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. *drew 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR. Edwardian 02:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research and non-encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 13:00, 14 November 2005 (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.