Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ortho Bionomy

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ortho Bionomy

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

Where to start? I'm pretty sure that this isn't one of the standard deletion reason, but so what. IAR.

The article is an unwikified mess since 10 months, doesn't clearly state notability (number of practioners etc) but entertains the reader with gems like The client can either be very passive or very involved [...].

There was stub since 2005 [1]] which was at least shorter and if there is no consensus for deletion, let's at least restart there.

But in my not so humble opinion, this article is a disgrace for an encyclopedia and instead of adding more pastel-shaded boxes, deletion (without prejudice against re-creation as a better article) is called for.

Pjacobi 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• delete as spam, plain and simple, and citing 2 books that are also advertising doesnt help it. DGG 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. This is essentially like all those martial arts masters who create their own trademarked discipline. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, advert/spam. Jacek Kendysz 09:32, 4 May 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.