Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodness factor

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness factor

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

WP:MADEUP seems to apply. As far as I can tell, this only one guy uses this. Note that there are other "goodness factors" out there, but Laithwaite's article is from 2009, so it's doubtful that the other goodness factors" are related. Perhaps the article just needs a complete rewrite rather than deletion, so I'm launching the debate here. Leaning towards delete for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The deletion call seems to have been made in bad faith, the article is referenced to a reliable source, and there are other reliable sources that are trivial to find with google or google scholar that refer to it (although most of them seem to be behind a paywall- but when has that ever been a deletion matter?) The caller is essentially claiming that the article is entirely made up by Wikipedia's editor(s), but it's clearly not. And it's not even Laithewaite's article, he died in 1997 or so- it's from somebody using his goodness factor in a reliable source.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madeup says: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead. If you do, don't try to write an article based on you or your friend's website. "- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This very clearly doesn't apply.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 00:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation index gives 163 hits, a lot of the top ones are by Laithwaite, but many are not: [1]- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reasonably well sourced and notable. May need to be renamed since there are multiple goodness factors in different fields. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so it's based on a 1965 article (and not 2009 as I previously thought)... that would explain a lot of things. Switching to keep, but might as well continue with the debate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:42, 30 December 2010 (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.