Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way

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. Majorly (Talk) 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Way[edit]

original research Voice of the UK 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No it isn't, calling something original research doesn't make it so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has no edits outside of this AfD. --Wafulz 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No context, not understandable. "Term" is not notable. Two Yahoo groups, a page detailing a "study group" for the author, and a BLOG about criticisms are not reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication why this mumbo-jumbo is supposed to be in any way notable. Recommend someone take a look at the "see also" articles, this may be a walled garden of cruft. Sandstein 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This title "The New Way" is used by hundreds of organizations, nothing to make this mumbo jumbo stand out from the rest of the claimants.SkierRMH 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE! Oh, the CRUFT of it all. This is part of a series of vanity articles about completely non-notable subjects created in an apparent attempt to boost the credibility of an absolutely non-notable author. Take a look at these:

Have you ever seen so much work done to create vanity articles? Sandstein's term was apt: "a walled garden of cruft" OfficeGirl 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the exclamation marks. I guess I was taken aback by the extent of the articles created in this scheme. I went ahead and made a mass AfD for the rest of these here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination). It is listed as a 2nd nomination because there was also a Category created for this author and someone tried to use the AfD process to delete the category.OfficeGirl 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOLLOCKS applies. Leibniz 13:12, 18 November 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.