Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic negotiation

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 no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic negotiation

An earlier deletion vote resulted in no consensus; all three 'keep' votes hinged on a rewrite. Over a year later, no improvement has been made; it's still a circular definition with questionable usefulness. Deltabeignet 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pending the lack of a complete overhaul with sources cited. I'm not claiming this is original research, but it kind of gives that impression. If it really is a notable topic, someone will come along and recreate it anyway. CrypticBacon 05:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks of sources. --Terence Ong 11:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• No, I disagree. Electronic negotiation (sometimes called automated negotiation) is a very hot research topic at the moment in the Artificial Intelligence, electronic commerce and multi-agent systems research communities. I promise I will personally try to rewrite it. The truth is that I need to delete a lot of the existing text for the result to make any sense at all. Of course, you will do as you please, but in my opinion deleting the whole entry would surely be wrong. User:Papertiger
  • comment the above editor has 4 edits, all involving this article, its AFD or its prior AFD. RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to respond to this comment: I have edited many more Wikipedia pages, but without having an account (so I was logged by IP). In general, I prefer to edit pages where a lot of specialised info already exists and I can use my expertise to build on that (e.g. the Game Theory site). Electronic negotiation really requires complete clean-up: I simply hesistate undertaking this task (I assure you I have an expertise in scientific paper writing, but anonymous writing is not my thing, usually). I could look at it when I have time, but no promises. Papertiger

• Weak keep I see potential for the article but it needs work. I added an econ-stub and tech-stub tag and did a little clean up. Not really in my area of expertise to add material. Question: is there an article we could redirect to? RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic, the stub tags will help to get it cleaned up, also hopefully it can be de-orphaned. Kappa 04:04, 6 March 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.