Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality Utilitarianism


 * 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 of the debate was delete. – ABCDe ✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Quality Utilitarianism
Delete Original research. 20 Google hits, none showing the existence of the concept Ultramarine 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and WP:NOR. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --HasNoClue 03:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - severe verifiability problems. Appears to be original research based primarily on a shaky understanding of utility (said concept being ridiculously slippery, this certainly can't be held against anyone). Redirecting to Utilitarianism would probably be best outcome, though I wouldn't argue with deletion per WP:V and WP:NOR if verification of outside use is not forthcoming. -- Jonel | Speak 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as or.Blnguyen 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or. Elfguy 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) It's a recent article, and certain obvious elements (References page, Links page) are not yet included - still under construction, so unfair to criticize it for lacking elements. This violates the "assume good faith" part in the Wikipedia AfD Page.  Also, I'm a new user, so I'd appreciate some more time to get used to Wikipedia and clean up the article before everyone decides to demolish it.  2) First two references on the page demonstrate the validity of the basic claims of the article.  The references aren't well documented yet, but the pre-existence of the concepts is, if you read the first two links.  3) User who nominated this page for deletion, Ultramarine, seems to have both a personal problem with the article, and a history of being an extremely biased Wikipedia user in general (see his profile for more info).  After a brief discussion, he refused to commmunicate further and immediately opted for deletion.  See Talk:Quality Utilitarianism.  4) Concept by name isn't more than 5 years old, and not very strongly spread by name into most Utilitarian talks.  Just like the esoteric topic "Set-Theoretic Models of Disjunctive Operators", not getting what you look for in 20 Google hits doesn't at all provide a good argument that it isn't a pre-established topic. Twiffy 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles need to adhere to Wikipedia policy from the very beginning. In particular, you need to cite verifiable proof that "Quality Utilitarianism" is a current term, and not something you made up.  Relax - you have 5 days.  And if you can't do it in 5 days, copy the page to your user space before then - maybe at User talk:Twiffy/Quality Utilitarianism and keep working on it there until it meets Wikipedia policy. Ikkyu2 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, unverified Avi 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:V, possibly WP:NOR as well. Iff multiple independent peer-reviewed references which specifically refer to the term "Quality Utilitarianism" appear before the end of this AfD, consider this vote changed to Keep.  Ikkyu2 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Angelo 04:11, 9 February 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.