Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard of OZ Methodology

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 merge. The article now directs to Wizard of Oz experiment, to which I have moved the former "Wizard Of Oz (experiment)". Metamagician3000 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of OZ Methodology

The article was written originally by one user Jfkelley. He hasn't made tons of other contributions since. The text basically refers to one John F. Kelley's dissertation in 1980, and its only sources are from it. While "no original research" can and should be loosened up a bit in the cases where your research was actually published, nobody else seems to know anything about this particular project to write it up to proper encylopedic style while not subverting the intent of the author. As it stands, the article just isn't encylopedic.

Suggestion: Suggest to Mr. Kelley that he write up the current article at his own website, then include said website as an external link in the article that someone else suggested merging it to, Wizard_Of_Oz_(experiment). SnowFire 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Sandstein 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding other sites [1] [2] [3]. So Kelley is correct that his ideas are used by others. Why not { {wikify} } and let someone fix up the tone problems? jbolden1517 ^Talk 06:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR WP:AUTO WP:VAIN article created by Jfkelley (talk · contribs) who is apparently the J. F. Kelley who is said to have invented this alleged methodology. I don't think we should encourage psychologists (or anyone) to write their own WP biographies! ---CH 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Google search for "Wizard of Oz methodology" turns up 138 hits, with some apparent usage by psychologists. However, I don't think that the term is in common enough usage to warrant an encyclopedia article. The article is also poorly written and inadequately referenced.--Nydas 09:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So-Weak-it-can-barely-lift-its-finger Keep per jbolden. S t e v e o 2 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Munchkin-sized keep as per jbolden1517. Vizjim 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published paper, so keep. But needs cleanup. Kim Bruning 11:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not interested who wrote it. I'm interested in what they wrote. It is not that widespread, but does have some credibility. Tyrenius 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - refrenced so somone wants to work on it. --Supercoop 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references show that the article subject is in common use. Kevin 01:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (As the author, I didn't think a vote was appropriate). My purpose in writing the article to define the "alleged methodology" (cute) is that I know (from reprint requests, among other things) that the methdology, as named, is in wide usage globally by psychologists and user-computer interface designers. I have often been asked about the origins of it. I did not take the time to add subsequent references and implementations. I will do so, and, perhaps provide further grist for this interesting debate. P.S. It wasn't my intention to violate any protocols for WP; I thought that the topic, by virtue of the publication in peer-reviewed journals and the wide-spread adoption of the methodology, it warranted encyclopedic coverage. And, vanity considerations notwithstanding, who better to document it than the guy who invented it? In any event, I'd like to ask for a Hold while I attempt to make these enhancements. Jfkelley 16:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the person who originally submitted the request, I'd have no problem putting the issue on hold. That said, have you considered the merge then delete option? To put it another way, the concepts between the (experiment) article and the (methodology) article are basically the same, right? I can't entirely be sure, but if that seems reasonable, then might I recommend doing that? I'll also add that adding references isn't the only thing needed. While short, the (experiment) article is simply written and "gets to the point." Now, more detail is great, especially from a person who helped originally research it, but the article isn't entirely clear with what the extra detail means. What were the other systems of the day like? Why did having a human experimenter make it easier to do the keyword recognition for vocabulary-building? What were later experiments able to do other than calendar/date syntaxes? I guess I should probably go read the original linked research to find out, but it seems like there's some work to be done on the article as well. SnowFire 20:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I like the idea of a merge. I'm embarrassed that my newbie search failed to pick up on the Experiment article when I wrote this one. I'd just go ahead and do it now, but I'm afraid of another blunder, so I propose to study the instructions on the merge instruction page and get everything right (for one thing, I'll have to find examples of the referring link that they speak about). I will also try to explain what the extra data means (I'll start by addressing your specific questions). I will try to do so concisely and in "encyclopedic" fashion. Thank you all for taking the time to contribute your feedback. WP is an amazing resource! Jfkelley 20:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up Response Ok, I think I did the merge correctly. I merged this article with the prior one Wizard Of Oz (experiment) and left a referring link in the redundant article Wizard of OZ Methodology. I also attempted to address the suggestions of SnowFire. Thank you for taking the time. Please let me know what you think.
I'll fix the redirect. Metamagician3000 12:10, 24 May 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.