Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I2k

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I2k

Contested prod. Pure original research and unsourced as well. TN‑X-Man 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, dicdef, reads like a pamphlet or something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research, possible G11 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Keep' – I am just not sure yet. First, if the article is a keep, it should be renamed “Information to Knowledge”. Second, though there is not an overwhelming number of hits regarding this particular catch-phrasing there are more than just a few, as shown here [1] and been growing steadily in use since 1994. In addition, there has been growing interest in the technology/scholarly field as shown here [2]. Can the article be Wikified, I believe so. However, it needs someone with more technical expertise in the field than me. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. While I would normally agree with Shoessss on this, it is spam and per WP:CSD#G11, would need a "fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopaedic". --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Mizu onna sango15 --T-rex 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy if possible. Zero notable sources. Its certainly WP:SPAM. Wonder if there is original research here too. Artene50 (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. JuJube (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
digging through the revision history i found this:

To wikipedia: This note can be deleted after acceptance.I am including this note for copyright concerns. I am 'name redacted', and I represent KnowledgeWorld. In your verification you will find this term referenced at knowledgworld.org. so there it is, this is clearly a bad conflict of interest on top of everything else. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Decdef, COI, OR... and possible more. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (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.