Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borda fixed point

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) 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borda fixed point

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Well sourced M a rtinp23 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Martinp23. It doesn't seem to be original research. --HResearcher 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks legit, is well sourced. A notable statistical topic. Rohirok 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Delete per Jitse Niesen. Looks can be deceiving. Without a peer-reviewed publication, this is not encyclopedia-worthy. Rohirok 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that it's probably not original research, but I don't think it's very notable either. According to Talk:Borda fixed point, nobody other than the author has commented on the proposed voting system. That indicates that it's not notable. It definitely makes it hard to write a balanced article about it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, talk page shows that it's self-promotion in violation of WP:NOT. Gazpacho 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Those who are willing to accept the "sources" at face value should read the talk page. Also note that the first two links are dead (and I doubt they correspond to anything ever published on paper) and the last two are self-published by the writer of the article. However, for full disclosure, I am not neutral; the author, User:Colignatus, was permablocked for making personal threats against me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked into it a bit. The first two links seem to lead to a now defunct preprint server, similar to the arXiv. The last two links are books published by Dutch University Press. I don't know this publisher, but it is not affiliated with any Dutch university as far as I can tell. I did not find evidence that any of these publications are peer-reviewed. Hence, I think they are not reliable sources and that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Jitse Niesen's comments about reliable sources. --HResearcher 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep One of the sources is from Project Gutenberg, and I don't think they publish just anybody. Septentrionalis 07:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Project Gutenberg's concern is whether the text is public domain. It is a library, not a refereed journal. It doesn't do any peer review or fact checking. Uncle G 15:36, 20 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, (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jitse Niesen; it's either WP:OR or failure of WP:V due to the lack of coverage by people other than the original author about this topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jitse Niesen. JPD (talk) 12:08, 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.