Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jury Scrutiny model

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 08:07Z

[edit] Jury Scrutiny model

Jury Scrutiny model (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be unsourced original research. Single author, tagged with {unreferenced} since July. No indication by the author as to any source for this. I couldn't find any obvious references to this out in the world. - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete No notibility for the model is shown. Not verifiable either.--Dacium 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is original research and it could be considered as a move to wiktionary as its a definition.Tellyaddict 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Arnoutf 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research essay.-- danntm ^T _C 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a political science professional, I have never heard of this term used for what is described. It gets no google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors (I know this isn't a criteria yet, but it does indicate notability). It is Original Research.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:31, 26 February 2007 (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.