Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle-time overhead


 * 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 ALL. Mo0 [ talk ] 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cycle-time overhead
Protologism. Though defined as a standard by the "International Intangible Management Standards Institute" (which itself doesn't seem very notable ), the term doesn't appear to have caught on. Google search returns no hits for this term that correspond with this definition. Article created by User:Kenstandfield whose primary edits lately have been to promote himself, his books, and his institute. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oh dear, there seems to be a whole system of nonsense articles around this: Nanotime, International intangible standards... want to list them AbsolutDan? Sdedeo (tips) 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure - let's discuss on this AfD's talk page. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related Protologisms:
 * Nanotime
 * Collaboration transactions
 * Knowledge transactions

Please discuss all 4. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, OK, Delete -- these are complete (interlinked) nonsense articles delineating some kind of "system" for classifying... not sure... um... original research (and presumably vanity) to the point of incomprehension. Sdedeo (tips) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think we should Delete all of these, unless clear, verified evidence of major media/academic interest/support can be shown. The self-promotion angle is abundantly clear, and the outside notability is not. See also Articles_for_deletion/Intangible_accounting, which I nominated before seeing this page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all. The entire constellation of Ken Steadman (contributions) seem to be inter-related and promotional, with these difficult to distinguish from invented gibberish-jargon. - David Oberst 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, fails WP:NEO and WP:NOR. --Coredesat 07:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Coredesat. It all seems to come out of one book and one alleged institute, which suggests also vanity and advertising.  Tychocat 08:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. It's just creating topics for self-promotion based on the development of his own "consultant-speak" and a self-created "institute". Nelson50 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. All of this is indeed too intangible. And OR besides. The author has not done enough to separate this from apparent nonsense reading.  See  for an article on same.  Description of author: "Dr. Ken Standfield, consultant, trainer, author and Chairman of IIMSI."  Shenme 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete articles intelligence is certainly intangible   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nomination.--Isotope23 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom Adambiswanger1 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:VSCA. Max S em 06:37, 14 June 2006 (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.