Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pario

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 by WP:SNOW and clear consensus per WP:CON, because it consists of material that is WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. It violates those policies as well as WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOT. This is not a speedy delete, and should not be "salted". Bearian 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pario

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

Contested prod. This is an essay promoting something called "Pario" as a replacement for the time-honored equals sign. This article is a weird hybrid of promotion, original research, and new age psychobabble, and is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. Bongwarrior 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable unverifiable unencyclopedically formulated ("Please feel free to contact me") original research, and marked "David R. Woodward © 2007" to boot!  --Lambiam 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. If you address the grammar and spelling, you're left with an article which makes no sense. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy also under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. The only words that you really need to read on the whole page are "To this end, I propose..." (which usually means WP:SCHOOL, but that's not a speedy). Deltopia 12:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am just spitballing here, but usually when one makes a a statement such as "feel free to contact me", there's a good chance that original research contributed significantly to the article. I'm pretty sure that there is no way to verify any of the information since this is one man's proposal. --Cyrus Andiron 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. It is a gross violation of WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV as well as WP:V and WP:N. Some statements could possibly be sourced, but would violate WP:SYNTH. This article cannot be saved in my opinion. --TreeKittens 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW, anybody? Deltopia 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#OR. This seems to be unverifiable original research. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:07, 4 October 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.