Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political weight

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political weight[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is filled with pure original research that does not fulfil the criteria. The original author keeps removing important tags including WP:OR tags. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dubious product of a non-notable website. No independent source to confirm notability.Glendoremus (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that you think only English material or English-language site can be considered valid source. this is racist. it is clear that political weight is new subject in political science. political weight based on mathematical and statistical method and every one know that mathematics do not need anyone confirmation. if you search in google or other search engine can be seen political weight term use in many article but no one of them explain what the mean of political weight. in this article, noted pw index formula for prove right method of it. and so iikss institute is independent NGO in Iran. it is not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirasoli (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is not, because the topic has to meet WP:GNG. A scientific theory, or - in this case - an index - has to show some importance. It is not enough that you have published it, it also has to be recognized by others. In case of such a topic, it means your work has to be cited by others. Can you show who else has cited your work? Non-English sources are fine. PS. You can also ask for this article to be userfied, and in a year or two, when you get some citations, you can try to republish it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator. Blythwood (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this may be an attempt to promote someone's pet project, but lacking significant secondary sources establishing that political weight is a thing, we delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no recognition by independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant reference to any sources outside of the IIKSS website, a website which shows no signs (as far as I can see) of being a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. So this topic does not meet WP:GNG. Alephb (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.