Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-consensus

Original research, from a user with a quickly growing history of same. None of the Google hits appear to be relevant. Contributor has been asked on talk page to give some references or citations for the concept, and has refused. RadicalSubversiv E 22:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Comments from main contributor Quickwik, who persists both in placing comments at Votes for deletion and in not signing them:
 * keep - it's seminal. And not origional.. the term "e-consensus" is used in similar ways in both consensus and genetics where the same mathematical principles are employed.  Also the concepts like "golden sugestion" are established and apply there.  If an encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge then where do you plan to put such knowledge?  Break it all up into 15 seperate articles?
 * Theres a page for tolken's 'dark world'.. are you saying the concepts of electronic consensus as function which filters noise and redundancy in voting populations is somehow not teolkenesque or not innane enough? Keep- I had the idea before I mentioned it here. change the "origional research" criteria to "unpublished research" since that's what you're really saying :) Also Every time you write a sentence you have committed "origional research".  Plus it's more convienant to leave it here and meta.wikipedia also cites the referance. The fundiemtal problem is that it is a cohearant topic and basically wikipedia is not it's self stable enough to hold it.. it's subject to too much erosion...  SEE there's a point to it being here..
 * E-consensus has been discussed in the talk pages
 * I concurr with the first voter that it is usefull and, while it is not "perfect", it contains the collection of non origional data relating to the unsolved problem of politics what is consensus ? as it relates to electronic fourms. The data contained does sugests some newer understandings about consensus and communication such as the "phase transition" principle and the not well studied aspects of removing both noise (as in condorcett) as well as redundancy (to protect against "majority abuses") in voting methods.
 * Moreover it is still unfinished as a topic. consensus has been used by those wishing to destablize a topic by instuting a "rule without rules" that people can just argue over "what is consensus" rather than adressing the fundimental choices which it creates. --which are more salient on e-fourms  Majority rule is like a sward count which is quick but often highly inneffective in informational fourms.  The alternitives sugested by consensus are ones which maintain a higher weight to argument consistancy.
 * E-consensus as mentioned used in two isomorphic ways in genetics and voting systems. Where should it be if not there?  Quickwik


 * Keep. It has value as an article. And besides, it's actually well-written, as opposed to most original research pieces. Alcarillo 16:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Remove the original research, which is probably most of the article. Anything that's left is probably addressed at consensus, so merge and redirect there. This only deserves a separate article if we can verifiably say something is different about consensus in electronic forums. The current content doesn't meet that standard. --Michael Snow 20:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to Meta. Interesting, well-written and relevant to Wikipedia, but still original research AFAIK. Can't see the value in the redirect, anyone searching on this will get to consensus without one IMO. Andrewa 20:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments: I should qualify that "well-written" in one regard... the spelling! See comment on the talk page. I haven't corrected it as it's interesting IMO as is. Also, I now see that this is part of a campaign by a particular user, who has posted many similar pages, all of which should be deleted from the article namespace. Andrewa 20:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I find the concept of great interest, and would like to see discussion expanded, this article fails to meet the basic criteria for inclusion in Wiki. It is seriously POV, it has all the earmarks of original research (phrases like "it seems..." and "most people can agree..." are less than definitive in their conclusions), and absolutely no sources are cited as support for any of the author's conclusions. I will admit as well that the singularly atrocious spelling in this article, which could mostly have been cleaned up with a quick trip through a spell check, gives me pause in itself to consider the scholarliness of this article. Denni 07:39, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
 * And now my vote: Delete. It's original research, it has very little content, and it's not a widely known term. There are plenty of places that will welcome this - not Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 19:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Until this can be sourced and verified outside Wikipedia, delete as original research. Rossami 22:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Distinctly original research, POV. +sj+ 01:25, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Kaihsu 17:15, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cribcage 03:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)