Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterns in multiple-choice tests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 8 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 15:32, 8 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. --Tikiwont 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Patterns in multiple-choice tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Original research essay. Ridernyc 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure OR. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Alberon 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in this case, there would be no reason other than notability for anyone to make the unsourced article. It needs cleaning up, and sourcing, though. digitalemotion 11:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the two comments above the one above. I don't get the explanation about why this should be kept. It's notable because someone wrote an article? Mandsford 12:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced, appears to violate WP:OR. Cogswobbletalk 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally goes against Wikipedia:No original research. Other than helping students cheat (will it really work?), there is no other use for this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cheating forum. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This sort of thing would work great in some of the articles devoted to statistics or human psychological biases, but alone...? No. --136.223.3.130 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pure OR and likely to be pure speculation as well. --Blanchardb 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Could not find any WP:RS, fail WP:OR and WP:N. i agree that some of this info (if sources found) should be merged with other statistical articles. MatthewYeager 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete, fails WP:OR ViperSnake151 14:43, 8 November 2007 (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.