- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (after removing 75% of article content). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Good Behavior Game ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is promotional in nature. WP:TNT also applies. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but I do agree that it's a complete mess and needs a total rewrite. The source material, however, establishes notability. Wouldn't object if someone took an axe to maybe 2/3 of the content. Partial TNT, anyway. Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: this article can be fixed , this just Another case of confusing article quality with notability.
Samat lib (
talk) 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are reasons for deletion other than a failure to meet notability guidelines. That said, I'll try to create a version of the article tomorrow that doesn't have the problems mentioned in my nomination statement (removing at least 80% of the existing content), if that fixes my concerns I'll withdraw this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've made a massive reduction. Part of the problem is that the topic in research journals is somewhat different from this corporate entity. I suspect the article was written with the intent to promote the latter, with the former included primarily to make the promotional material appear notable. There are still enough problems I'm not going to withdraw this at this time; if someone else improves it further I might. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:07, 23 October 2017 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (after removing 75% of article content). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Good Behavior Game ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is promotional in nature. WP:TNT also applies. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep but I do agree that it's a complete mess and needs a total rewrite. The source material, however, establishes notability. Wouldn't object if someone took an axe to maybe 2/3 of the content. Partial TNT, anyway. Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: this article can be fixed , this just Another case of confusing article quality with notability.
Samat lib (
talk) 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are reasons for deletion other than a failure to meet notability guidelines. That said, I'll try to create a version of the article tomorrow that doesn't have the problems mentioned in my nomination statement (removing at least 80% of the existing content), if that fixes my concerns I'll withdraw this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've made a massive reduction. Part of the problem is that the topic in research journals is somewhat different from this corporate entity. I suspect the article was written with the intent to promote the latter, with the former included primarily to make the promotional material appear notable. There are still enough problems I'm not going to withdraw this at this time; if someone else improves it further I might. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:07, 23 October 2017 (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.