Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Outcomes

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. CLoudy with a chance of SNOW. StarM 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Outcomes

Chock full of original research and reads like it was written by a corporate middle-manager with too much time on his hands. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reason as one below. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and could well be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator claims the article(s) are part of work for her Masters degree. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to her at the article talk page with some mention of WP:NOT#OR. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:IINFO.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No OR as it makes no claims not found in articles (needs cites). Tried to find unusual phrases on other sites - did not. Hence "copyvio" is rank speculation. It is an article in outline form, which suggests the author intends expansion at some point. This is supported by it being brand new. No attempt was made to initiate discussion on the talk page, nor any attempt to contact the author prior to listing for deletion. The new editor has, in fact, also entered articles which have a heading from "Wikiproject Law." Collect (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point you towards the discussion here which effectively pops your argument like a balloon. I'd say part of a Masters thesis comes under original research; last time I checked being checked by a professor does not constitute a peer review or anything approaching the type of professional approval necessary. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Again, this is original research. Oh, and the content is pure trash. Timneu22 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are speedy deletion criteria, though :). Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement on what looks like a very similar article. (I'm assuming this is what Politizer refers to as "one below".) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak keep~~ Transfer to userspace for much needed improvement. I see no obvious OR. Unencyclopedic article structure (bullets) and unclear focus is a problem. Much text is about dispute resolution, and not the enforcement of the outcome, this sure needs definition. The dispute resolution page is itself flagged for need of an expert. Perhaps a merge could be the way forward? A lot of work has gone into this, is there no salvage value at all? ~~In reality, I may be on the weak delete side.~~ Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of OR see this. Masters thesis/work is OR indeed. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen the next Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enforcement of the Mediated Agreement, identical problems, but I see a lot of good intentions by the editor. Improve. Concerning OR, I see recitation of other peoples' work, but not obvious OR Power.corrupts (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as this. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no sources at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2009 (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.