Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vosem Chart

Original research. Apparently a user named 3ebnut on Kuro5hin came up with this, and posted it to that site about a year ago. Google reveals Kuro5hin, Wikipedia and clones, and a Selectsmart quiz, which I presume the same guy created. -- WOT 19:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, unconvinced by evidence. Sam [Spade] 20:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. Jmabel 21:27, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm convinced it's a neat chart.  I'm not convinced that it's notable or in-use.  It seems like individual research.  Like most such, it seeks to fill a real void.  Like most such, it needs to show adoption/publication to be encyclopedic. Geogre 21:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the onus of evidence rest on the article (especially if you're going to cast a vote to keep)? A circumstantial bit against it (in my view) is that it was originally posted by an anonymous user. I've since found one other reference to it on an unnotable "this-is-not-a-blog" blog where the author refers to it in a discussion of the Nolan Chart, citing Wikipedia as his source for the Vosem Chart. This, to me, is a reason to delete the article before it can further exploit Wikipedia's authority. The Kuro5hin link could go to the bottom of the Nolan Chart page. -- WOT 21:58, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Delete. DannyBoy | Talk 02:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, and culturally biased to boot. -Sean Curtin 06:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - David Gerard 12:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's a political site where you can see where you fall. Salasks 17:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, with the hope that it comes back later as well known as the Nolan Chart. The Kuro5hin article is most interesting, but unfortunately in my estimation constitutes original research. Denni &#9775; 19:37, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even orig research, just a trivial mechanism that needs orig research to establish whether it offers any advantage. --Jerzy(t) 21:03, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. --Michael Snow 23:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)