Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level


 * Delete, no content. (a speedy delete, really) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, now. Nunh-huh has made it into an interesting stub (rather than the preceeding twaddle about beavers). -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 01:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I'll hold off. I mean no disrespect at all to Nunh-huh's work, but I think it's now accurate, but too stubby.  Great props to the work, but perhaps it will be stronger before voting ends. Geogre 02:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reading levels are Big Business, and the Flesch-Kincaid is one of the more commonly used formulas.  The stub has a lot of potential, although it's not as charming as the beaver paragraph was.  I'll try to work on it a bit.  Joyous 03:29, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on the article. If no one objects, I'd like to make this page a redirect to Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests, because there are 2 separate tests that are so tightly entertwined that it's hard to write about 1 without the other.  "Reading Level" seems to be an informal name for them.  Joyous 05:13, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok. How is it now? Joyous 05:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well done! Do the re-direct thing as suggested.  I don't think it's a stub any longer. Noisy 09:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, sure, plenty notable. I always enjoy checking this stuff when I'm writing a paper on MS Word. Everyking 10:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Day-um! Now that's what I'm talking about.  Redirect, absolutely, and keep.  (I always hated clicking on it, myself, and took a perverse pride in seeing my fog index increase.) Geogre 12:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Definately a good article now. Move to Flesch-Kincaid Readability Tests if that is the more proper name, but the content is a definate keep. TPK 16:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Microsoft Word actually uses it for readability analyses. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 18:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Will it hurt anything to go ahead and do the re-direct now, while the article is on VFD? Joyous 00:45, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope. I moved it. - Nunh-huh 02:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote closed