Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropometric Disaster Area


 * 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. Original research per consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthropometric Disaster Area

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism/Original research cooked up by one Thomas Frey, part of building a walled garden of articles by } and supporting Frey's ventures (Per Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud: "Even "Anthropometric Disaster" gets a whopping 9 ghits, all of which are in essays by Thomas Frey Tubezone 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"). These articles include The DaVinci Institute (and its redirect Davinci institute), the now-deleted Maximum Freud, and, of course Thomas Frey. Only the very thinnest of references, all seemingly self-generated. Calton | Talk 00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not to deny that obesity is a problem, but inventing buzzwords is not the proper way to solve it.  Proper diet and exercise is the way to solve...well, at least most of it.  But I digress.  --Dennisthe2 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 0 non-wiki Ghits. Artw 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a loop of inter-referring buzz-word does not generate a notable group of articles. And User:Dennisthe2 is quite right; digressing even more, the problem should be addressed, not accepted and described.--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Anthropometric disaster zones" gets one significant ghit, but that just confirms that it's a unique (and somewhat silly, IMO) coinage. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V with a whopping 0 relevant ghits. SkierRMH, 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (merge to Thomas Frey article, if it happens to survive) highlunder 13:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's bad that the only hit on Google for this term is the Wiki article itself. .V. (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. J I P  | Talk 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Section9 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Rudjek 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, this was to have been deleted as part of Articles for deletion/Maximum Freud, no need for 2nd AfD on this. Tubezone 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom :3- DE SU  04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A Ramachandran 19:59, 14 January 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.