- 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. MBisanz talk 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote Sizing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsalvageable POV essay on non-notable neologism. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I don't know if I'd call this a neologism, but it's certainly part of a personal essay. The 'Articles about vote sizing' are all blogs and such, and the most notable of those articles (the last one) is an op-ed in Dissident Voice by the inventor of the term. Google Books has nothing, and if the term is notable enough, that's where it should have turned up. Right now, it's an invention of sorts with no notability. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not DeleteChuck Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ with you. The content is certainly not a personal essay, nor is it about a specific point of view; in fact, I attempted to point out the flaws in the theory just as much as its advantages. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a neologism--that seems a valid criticism. There are a number of universities considering the inclusion of vote sizing as part of courses on voting systems. I notice that the Glickman biography is also marked for deletion, yet the guy is out there in public promoting his idea not only in politics but in a business venture. What does it take for him to be considered 'notable'? I believe that Wikipedia has become too restrictive in topic selection, probably in defense against criticism of its accuracy. I believe that the policies about accuracy, properly cited sources, and non-copyrighted materials are absolutely correct and necessary. I agree that notability must be a criterion for articles included here, but we must be more flexible in that area. The vote sizing movement may turn out to be a flash in the pan--but if it is not, then isn't it important that Wikipedia have an entry about it? It is better to have too much information included in the encyclopedia rather than too little. Sorry to go on so long here--you pushed a hot button! Chuck Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chuck, thanks for your response. With 'personal essay' I don't mean that it's autobiographical or something like that, or that it's POV. I mean that it's original research, to a great extent, and that is borne out by the references--or really, the lack of published references. To satisfy WP:N (and me, for instance), you need independent, third-party, significant coverage, and blogs and the like (like videos) just don't count (much) in that respect. Remember, WP isn't even about truth, but it's about verifiability, and blogs are not 'stable' enough in some ways, and not authoritative enough in many other ways. You seem to be invested in this topic; fine! Why not write the article about Glickman, and have a subsection on vote sizing? (Disclaimer: I don't know what this Glickman biography is you're referring to...) But then, his Seed is self-published, no? There also you might run into notability issues; Google books didn't show me that his book was cited. But search the NYT archives, the JSTOR databases, etc.--Glickman has a better chance of survival than this one single issue. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original synthesis of research and an essay. Fine for a blog -- not an encyclopedia article.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2008 (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.