Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targets and Utility
- 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research essay, fails WP:OR. Google search of "Targets and Utility" brings up six completely unrelated links. --Wafulz 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rapid Delete: Gives original research a Bad Name ... cannot figure out how title relates to subject under discussion ... "utility" appears beaucoup times in nearly every paragraph, but "targets" only appears in the title! Dennette 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—This article apparently relates to utility theory in game theory. It is rather poorly written—it may not be original research—but probably deserves to be deleted based on clumsy writing. I'll not vote to delete for a couple of days in hope that someone literate in the topics can give us a more intelligent comment on whether a serious revision can save it, or whether it deserves to vanish. Williamborg (Bill) 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but tag it "verify" and "sources" Essentially agree with Bill. poorly elaborated article, unsourced and unclear as to its origins, but probably not OR (see article on utility and game theory. I suspect the author may not have had time to refine it before it has AfD slapped on it the same day. Ohconfucius 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Left comment at User talk:Bordley requesting he get in touch so we figure out how to improve this article to avoid a delete. New editors should be saved when possible; and not discouraged. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 04:20, 21 August 2006 (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.