Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrevention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Anas talk? 13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intrevention

Intrevention (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was created by a single purpose account and has been orphaned and tagged as non notable for some time. I can't make heads or tails of it and no expert has responded to the request for help placed by another editor some time ago. Google doesn't come up with anything, it is a possible misspelling of intervention, but I don't know how that fits in with warehousing. Either some one can improve it during AfD or it should probably just be deleted. Daniel J. Leivick 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Dicdef and a poor one at that.--Ispy1981 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdef and looks like nonsense. Oysterguitarist 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense, WP:WINAD, etc. Also don't see any proof that this is a real definition of either intrevention or intervention; all 56 GBooks hits are clearly using it as a misspelling of intervention. [1]. On the basis of having so many GBooks hits, maybe redirect to intervention after deletion? However, I don't see the fact that it's been in the (non-subject-sorted) Category:Articles needing expert attention for x months to mean anything at all; does anyone really look through that category besides statistics bots? What's the likelihood that a business expert is just gonna happen to click through all the way to 'I'?cab 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually added the expert-review tag on July 3, and announced it here. So it hasn't been on the category for months. I would have preferred a longer waiting time for the expert review, before sending the article to AfD. But still, neither to the expert review nor to the AfD there were any responses that clarified the subject; so probably it's only nonsense in the end. --B. Wolterding 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdef. WP:WINAD. Bart133 (t) (c) 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is about an actual word. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either this is misspelled, and ought to be rewritten (and perhaps added to intervention); or else it is jargon being defined by other, even more impenetrable jargon. In the latter case, it might just possibly be a stub with potential, but the existing page is so free from context that it approaches unintelligibility. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 20:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to intervention. This seems to be a cost-accounting topic, which would make it worthy of an article, if it could be sourced. However, I could not find any mention of the term in several accounting books, and Google is no help. So I would say delete as unverifiable, except it would make a nice redirect, since it is a plausible typo. --Ginkgo100talk 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect---my wife asked me about this article before it was up for AFD because I work for one of the big 4 firms... I couldn't find anything on this term and have never heard it.Balloonman 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 16:36, 12 July 2007 (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.