Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cost-performance ratio

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. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-performance ratio

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

A combination of original research, foretelling the future and defining a term which belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary - If it had to be deleted or moved to Wikitionary, this article should be moved. Just because you're not a fan of the Singularity like me, it doesn't mean you have to disregard articles about our future. GVnayR (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care one way or the other about it. But creating random articles and adding references to existing articles that reference it is a direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Just because the idea is cool (and I agree it's a cool idea) doesn't mean it is inevitable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment - I have toned down the article a bit. Now it's other people's turn to expand on it. GVnayR (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, otherwise transwiki to Wikitionary. I made some changes that should make it more clear where this term is coming from and that it's part of futurist speculation. Should be OK now. causa sui × 21:32, 2 March 2010 (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.