Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

I see no evidence that this term is in wide use. The Google hit for instance finds 155 unique hits. Well that's not good although it's not terribly bad either. Of course a number of these are wiki-related and there is also a problem because it's a very natural sentence to have without refering to the concept described in the article. However, proponents of this concept usually use the abbreviation ACH and if you search for both you get 62 unique hits. That's too low I think for this to be anything more than a neologism or some Dilbertesque fad. Pascal.Tesson 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add context. 152 hits for heuer "analysis of competing hypotheses", apparently it's an influential idea. Gazpacho 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Gets a fair number of hits in google scholar. Seems to have some use by the CIA as well. I think this bears further investigation. Irongargoyle 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasons above. Needs expansion. —ExplorerCDT 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded, with WP:RS added. The article, at the present time, says nothing that could be disproved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I could replace the title by some other term, and it would be just as good an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Rubin.--Peta 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gazpacho. It looks like a legimate term that could be expanded into a very worthwhile encyclopedic entry. 205.157.110.11 09:14, 19 September 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.