Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyoming Rule

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 keep by clear consensus as notable and sourced enough. Bearian 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Rule

Wyoming Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability problems; This term seems to be the creation of one political science professor. Neutrality^talk 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here are some sites mentioning the Wyoming Rule. Per
  WP:RS#Self-published_sources, blogs "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications..." Daily Kos
  , for instance, is a rather famous blog.
  • http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/13260/2764
  • http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog/archives/lewis_baston/index.html
  • http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=8823
  • http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/12/decennial-re-apportionment-and-census.html
  • http://www.ubiquit.us/blog/archives/2005/01/a_bad_idea.html

Captain Zyrain 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As per above, seems to have a reasonable enough level of popularity amongst reformers to qualify for inclusion. Keep. —Verrai 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above
  94 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Much as I love pie-in-the-sky political reform wonkery, this just isn't notable. No results in Google Books, Google News Archive, or Google Scholar. The Google search wyoming.rule+apportionment yields a grand total of 26 hits, all blogs or other media of dubious permanence and reliability. At best this is a merge to United States congressional apportionment. It's just one proposal and there is zero indication Congress will take up the issue anytime soon. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly the information reasonably belongs in Wikipedia; while it could be in United States congressional apportionment, I'd give the original editor and others more than a few hours to either show that it should remain as a separate article or to merge it. A separate article can be used to collect and refine specific information for later merge, and this does no harm. Abd 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Kos blog thread, if actually read, indicates the idea has been previously discussed--perhaps the article should be renamed no longer online, havent looked for it yet.DGG (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2007 (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.