Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioteams

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 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioteams[edit]

Appears to be vanity/neologism; may also fail WP:NOR. To be specific:

Vanity: the author and main contributor to this page is User:Ken.thompson. The inventor and primary expositor of the theory described in the article, and the maintainer of the Bioteams blog, is called Ken Thompson.
Neologism: searching for people other than Ken Thompson who use this term yields remarkably few results. While there are about 15,000 Google hits for the word "Bioteams", my brief sampling of these suggests that most of them are related to an apparently unrelated German company of the same name (website), while the rest fall into two broad categories: articles by Ken Thompson, and references to the Ken Thompson's blog (often in the context of people observing that they've never heard of "bioteams" before). Indeed, the article itself describes this as "a new area of research".

For these reasons, I am inclined to the view that this article should be deleted.

If the consensus ends up being that this should be kept, note that it is in serious need of cleanup; particular problems are the unencyclopedic writing style, the poor wikification, and the long, rambling "bibliography" section which contains texts that are mostly only tenuously connected to the claims of the article, and certainly do not appear to be about "bioteams" as such. — Haeleth Talk 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the above reasons. Thefuguestate 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent nom. --Daniel Olsen 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EXCELLENT nomiation for AfD! I agree with your research and I can't say much more than this fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I believe you should get a citation for this..in fact, on my next break I will do just that --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well-written and comprehensive nomination. This inspires me to make a Nominator Barnstar. And I'm less than half joking. :P I can't give any further reasoning than the nominator did, try as I might. Srose (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the related articles Interlock research and Lateral communication should be looked at as well as possibly being a neologism and unverified respectively.--Isotope23 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ~~per nom~~ no... ~~per great nom~~ no...... per marvellous nom :) You deserve a barnstar and infinite praises from Jimbo himself ;) M a rtinp23 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) M[reply]

Comment - ah - you've already got the barnstar - well done :) M a rtinp23 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a biological concept. Dryman 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.