Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law 2.0

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law 2.0

Law 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

per WP:NOR Fiblick 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's hard to tell what this is just by reading the article, but it does have about 24k elgooG hits... —EdGl 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm pretty sure most of those google hits aren't relevant to the article - whatever it is - at hand. Eusebeus 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems like a load of baloney at best and a hoax at worst, and yet we also have a Category for "Law 2.0", which includes many other articles, such as Identity 2.0, City 2.0, Library 2.0, and, uh.... Wet floor effect. WTF? As far as I can tell, some enterprising upstarts are trying to expand the Web 2.0 concept to everything else on Earth, with mixed results. wikipediatrix 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too fluffy to even make sense of, my head is reeling. RichMac 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and maybe even salt, per WP:V, WP:NOR, and probably numerous other policies and guidelines. Borderline case for WP:BOLLOCKS. Suggest some nuking of the cats and other articles mentioned by Wikipediatrix as well. Xtifr _tälk 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I've studied on it and I still don't get it. Scientology makes perfect sense compared to this. wikipediatrix 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. This looks like a buzzword within a buzzword rather than a substantive topic. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2.0 per above. MER-C 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Per above reasons--SUIT 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a fairly pontless article. Atlantis Hawk 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ^BETA - per nom. wtfunkymonkey 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not NPOV either. SupaStarGirl 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's an advert, and per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft 2.0 Anyone can make up a term by applying 2.0 to an English word Lurker ^oi! 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2.0, violates WP:OR. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though I fixed the HTML, it still is lacking. --SonicChao ^talk 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete first off it's written like an ad with "features" listed but about what? Original research.--Shella * 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, ad, etc.-- danntm ^T _C 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article is rather original research and does not sound very much encyclopedic.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the entire 2.0 fad as non-notable neologism riding on the coattails of Web 2.0. adding ~ism on the end of each noun or person's name is bad enough. Nuke the lot. Ohconfucius 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 November 2006 (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.