Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground rules


 * 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. Kusma (討論) 09:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ground rules
Every section of the Ground rules article lacks references and therefore constitutes original research. No effort is being made to add references. Rather than delete all sections as original research, it makes more sense to delete the entire article. Besides the original research problem, the following are additional reasons for removing the article:  Businesses sometimes do use ground rules for meetings, but the list of rules in the article may be considered arbitrary at best and representing a particular business philosophy at worst (POV). Does anyone besides the editors of this Wikipedia article talk about Congressional Standing Rules as "ground rles"? If not, then the article is invoking the view that any set of rules can be considered "ground rules." This page should then be replaced with a re-direct to the Wikipedia page on Rules. Baseball does indeed have ground rules. But there is already an article on baseball ground rules in Wikipedia: Ground rules (baseball). The baseball ground rules alone are not a justification for keeping this article. Psychotherapists also use ground rules for therapy. However, as with the business ground rules, the list of rules in the article may be considered arbitrary at best or reflecting a particular therapeutic approach at worst (POV). People in open marriages, such as swingers and polyamorists, often talk about having ground rules for their relationships. I had written a separate article on relationship ground rules that referenced all material to research conducted by PhDs and published in scientific books and journals. That article was, ironically, deleted as original research. (I was not the author of any of the scientific studies cited in the article.) The paragraph remaining in the ground rules article does not contain the referenced material and hence fails the original research criterion.  - kc62301 October 5, 2006
 * Delete That which is not original research is a dictionary definition. Guy 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per that guy up there. -- Merope Talk 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per zat guy. The article is essentially a (vague) unverified dicdef with numerous arbitrary examples. The "government" section is completely unsubstantiated. Neither law nor government speaks of "ground rules", a ter that, at most, would be a colloquialism used to describe the real terms to a lay-person. Agent 86 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Revise, this could be a meaningful article of the examples weren't so haphazard and it had better research. If that's not possible, then it would be better for something like wikionary. -- Craigtalbert 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article would need a serious overhaul that it doesn't seem to be getting. --Matthew 01:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.