Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthiest families in history: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:41, 2 May 2008

Wealthiest families in history

A morass of original research and synthesis from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable and should be kept Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Notability is not drawn into question here; original research and methodological concerns are the issue, and those points are well-taken. Pop Secret (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research and it suffers from a lot of compounding problems. seicer | talk | contribs 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the compatibility problems are explained there, and do not really amount to OR. They can be discussed further there. DGG (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An author does not erect a shield from deletion simply because he has been forthright about the limitations of his article. The author has compiled of data from several sources (not all of which are identified) and has applied an unidentified and unsourced algorithm (endnotes 1 and 2 in the article are dead-ends). If this isn't OR/synthesis, what the hell is?
Keep, conflicting reasons given for nomination. Is it OR or is it competing methodologies? Doesn't look to be OR, and readers are not dumb, and could probably handle properly annotated conflicting methods, or you could add different columns for the different totalisation methods. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''Delete''': [[WP:OR|Original research]] and it suffers from a lot of compounding problems. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' the compatibility problems are explained there, and do not really amount to OR. They can be discussed further there. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
+**'''Comment:''' An author does not erect a shield from deletion simply because he has been forthright about the limitations of his article. The author has compiled of data from several sources (not all of which are identified) and has applied an unidentified and unsourced algorithm (endnotes 1 and 2 in the article are dead-ends). If this isn't OR/synthesis, what the hell is?
 *'''Keep''', conflicting reasons given for nomination. Is it OR or is it competing methodologies? Doesn't look to be OR, and readers are not dumb, and could probably handle properly annotated conflicting methods, or you could add different columns for the different totalisation methods. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)