Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pournelle Chart

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Pournelle Chart
Insufficient distinction to merit it's own article. All good data from this article should be put in the Political Spectrum entry and this entry closed. Well, the first has already been done at Political Spectrum Pournelle Chart My vote is MERGE into Political Spectrum. (I hope merge is the right word, it's a rather unidirectional merger.) Harvestdancer 15:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Redirect as that is the term I wanted. Harvestdancer 17:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Make that a Weak Redirect since I found out that Nolan Chart has it's own page. Harvestdancer 06:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Political Spectrum as the information has already been included there. Not really a candidate for deletion, as I'm sure people with more experience than I will be more than willing to explain... ESkog 16:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a minor variation of the Nolan chart. Pournelle is big name in the SF and computer hobbyist worlds, but he's not a major politicial theorist, and his minor contributions don't rate their own articles.Isaac R 19:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor variant of the Nolan Chart? The only thing it has in common is that it's 2-d.  That's all.  Harvestdancer 05:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Isaac R, excellent analysis. Quale 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Political_spectrum. --Carnildo 23:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Individual models typically don't get their own article - Juan Ponderas
 * Keep and give it a chance to expand. The Political spectrum article is getting long. There's no room for the sections to grow if they can't branch out to there own pages.--Heathcliff 03:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that as long as it's a consistant policy decision and not an exception made for this chart. Juan Ponderas
 * It doesn't need to expand. If Jerry Pournelle's version of the Nolan chart were notable, the article would be fine as it is. But it's not, for the reasons I've stated above. Isaac R 04:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I dispute that reasoning. The Pournelle chart is not at all a "minor variation of the Nolan Chart". One axis is a completely original concept; the only similarity is the axis on government authority, which the Nolan Chart splits in two rather than one. That Pournelle is not known for being a political theorist does not affect the merit of the model. That I think his model is absolutely ridiculous is another matter besides. Juan Ponderas
 * I agree with Juan. This is NOT a "Nolan variant."  The only similarity it has to the Nolan Chart is that it is two-dimensional.  Any two axes would be two dimensional.  It takes more than that to be a Nolan Variant, say by pairing some sort of Civil Liberty axis with some sort of Economics Axis, like Political Compass or Eysenck.  This is it's own chart.  I just don't yet feel that each individual chart deserves it's own page yet so this should be a Merge and Redirect into Political Spectrum.  Really, who after reading the entry would mistake this for a Nolan variant?  I mean, after reading it, not just looking at it.Harvestdancer 05:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen it referred to before on the Net. Besides, the inventor is already famous for other reasons. Wiwaxia 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per Carnildo. Radiant_* 11:07, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 66.94.94.154 22:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is a distinct concept, linked to from more than just Political Spectrum: it should have its own article for the sake of normalisation. The extended explanation should be merged from Political Spectrum to avoid duplication and contradiction. --Phil | Talk 10:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.