Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative to internet

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 of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative to internet

Prodded for the second time, so moving here. It's an essay or something about the internet. Original research, if nothing else. NickelShoe 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy' -- Tawker 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. This article is at best original research, but closer to simple opinion. If someone wanted to write an article on potential alternatives to the internet, and include a section citing why certain people feel there should be one that would be great, but this is not that article. Not my leg 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I went ahead and moved the above comment from the discussion page. At AfD the project page is itself a discussion, so the discussion page is usually not used. NickelShoe 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for correcting that, I'll remember it in the future. Not my leg 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Concur with delete WP:NOR. The de-prod was made by the original author. With four concurrences, I move we close and send to the speedies. Alba 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Editing from "Speedy" to "Delete": NOR is not a speedy candidate. Alba 21:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not Fair at all I guess Wikipedia rules are best understood by those who drafted them. When I decided to post my article, I had a reference article on hand which was similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmix But I guess this article did not qualify for deletion even though it came out as an advert. I wonder why? Maybe they paid to put it there...So I guess atleast you should remove the word "Free" from Free Encyclopedia...so there is no pretence.
• Delete Fair or not it is not encyclopedic text. Pavel Vozenilek 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not a valid reason for delete What does constitute as encyclopedic. Does the advertisement above on Kosmix (which is in alpha stage) constitute as encyclopedic? I can give many more such examples
  • Nobody said that every other article in here is okay. That's like saying one criminal shouldn't get locked up simply because another went free. If you would like to propose the other article for deletion, you have that ability. It's silly to accuse them of paying to put it here--anyone can edit articles, and there's plenty of bad ones that just haven't been deleted yet. Alternative to internet is being discussed for deletion because it is not encyclopedic, it draws on your own conclusions and stuff. If you're not disagreeing with that, then you're not opposing the deletion based on pre-existing standards, but instead just your feelings. Do also remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. NickelShoe 11:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If it makes you feel better, I just put an {{advert}} tag on Kosmix. ergot 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am the most recent prodder. I aver this is not encyclopedic material. Toby Douglass 00:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Sulfur 03:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unfixable POV soapboxing & original research. unencyclopedic. — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:39, 26 February 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.