Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weight-of-evidence articles

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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of weight-of-evidence articles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete The complete absence of sources indicates that the articles on this page are essentially a randomly selected set, which may be the result of original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely original research to group like this, not seeing the connection between jury nullification and statistical methods. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incoherent hodgepodge of various unrelated meanings of "weight" and "evidence". I have also changed the categorization from "T" (science and technology) to "I" (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge~~ Delete. Indiscriminate and unsourced. Unclear what this should really be. Even if something like this could plausibly pass WP:LISTN, the current list is useless as a starting point, so WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very strange reading experience, but not an encyclopedic list. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical collection of topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is an article, need to be supported by citations and there are none. Peter303x (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2021 (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.