Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumerpedia

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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerpedia[edit]

The page says that the stuff no longer works. Do we keep the page? Fplay 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the owner of Consumerpida, Dan Keshet, says it it dead. I will go for a speedy... Fplay 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting bit of history. This is also not a speedy deletion candidate. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. If it rated an article before, there's no reason to remove it. Fplay should reread the CSD policy - David Gerard 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete. Dan's own argument about its unverifiability is pretty convincing ;-) - David Gerard 12:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikipedia is not a news service. Kappa 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- abstain. Kappa 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Abstain per request. I don't have much of an opinion about this. -- JJay 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I am flabbergasted that there was ever an article on this. This was a project I thought was a decent idea for a couple weeks, then gave up on. I don't remember having more than three users! One of them was myself, and one of them was the initial author of this article (hi Juxo! Please don't take this personally!). This is no more interesting than the proverbial article on my breakfast. I cannot stress strongly enough how silly I think it is to have an article on this. DanKeshet 19:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another note: the article, as it is, is a POV mess. "problematic"? I don't want to edit it (as it involved myself), but there is literally virtually nobody else in the world who can. Unverifiable to the extreme. And trivial. DanKeshet 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DanKeshet: Not notable, not verifiable, not encyclopedic. An idea by a Wikipedian that never blossomed into a real project. -- DS1953 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I see nothing verifiable here. Delete unless it becomes verifiable somehow, which seems unlikely. Friday (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2005 (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.