Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restricted randomization

Restricted randomization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a mirror of a handbook on a government website. It's not subject to speedy deletion because it technically is not a copyright infringement. But see WP:NOTMIRROR. Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason given for deletion. None of the four points under WP:NOTMIRROR applies to this article. It certainly needs some work, including a proper lead section, but I see no reason at all to delete it. Qwfp (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An admin (I forget who) once said that editors should eliminate "speedy keep" and "speedy delete" in AfD discussions. Couldn't agree more. "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." (WP:NOTMIRROR).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collections of public domain or other source material... that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording clearly does not apply to this article. (By the way, "fails to advance an argument for deletion" is a valid reason for WP:Speedy keep). Qwfp (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying the language used (not counting the intro that no one seems to like) is useless? Perhaps we should mirror information on all sorts of websites as long we can get the proper license. What a world. Failing to advance an argument is different from you - or anyone else - saying the argument I advanced is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it will still be useful after its wording has been modified, hence is not 'source material' in the meaning of WP:NOTMIRROR#3. See also WP:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources para 2. Qwfp (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plagiarism cite is not particularly helpful in this context. As for your first point, it would be great if you would modify the wording and make the article useful. It's been in its present, not useful, mirrored state for years now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article, and all of its historical versions are just a pure text dump without context. The entire article would need rewriting from scratch. The presence of the current article is not helpful to the reader looking up "restricted randomization", and furthermore, the existence of this mess is likely to inhibit any casual editors coming by from trying to fix this due to the huge mess it is in. We are better served by blowing it up and starting from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum' - I forgot to note that in poking around Google Books, it does seem that the topic would likely meet notability and we should have an article, but based on my reasoning above, I'm expressing an opinion of delete as I am [[WP:IAR}ignoring all rules]] in that deleting this instance of the article would acutally help the development of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]