Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International intangible standards


 * 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. King of ♥   ♦   ♣   ♠  22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

International intangible standards
Non-notable standards created by a marginally (if at all) notable organization, added as vanity by its chairman Ken Standfield (User:Kenstandfield), whose sole edits (Special:Contributions/Kenstandfield) have been to promote himself, his books, and his institution. See also the following (closed) AfDs of other articles by Kenstandfield, which provide additional reasoning for deletion of these so-called "intangible management" topics: I am also nominating the following related page because it is a protologism by the same editor and is similar Vanispamcruftisement:
 * Articles for deletion/Cycle-time overhead
 * Articles for deletion/Intangible accounting
 * Wait time --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as vanity.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Strong Delete As Vanity, Advertising, Decdief, incomprehensiblity, and sheer junk Tobyk777 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - for various intangible reasons... :) David Oberst 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Both per all the above. Tevildo 00:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity and advertising. doktorb | words 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete burninate the whole lot. Danny Lilithborne 01:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as absolute nonsense? TrianaC 01:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' Anyone else know what this article is talking about? AdamBiswanger1 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete whaaaaa?? &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete All I'm changing my vote. After careful reading, I can't even make sense of what this is supposed to be.  Nuke 'em all and send Ken Standfield to bed without supper. Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everybody   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  01:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Coredesat 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No claim of notability made. tan·gi·ble (adj.): capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value. in·tan·gi·ble (adj.): WP:NN. ~ trialsanderrors 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What?  T e  k e  03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely no encyclopedic value. Deyyaz [ Talk 04:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I gather this is essentially about work performance standards, but it is complete crap. Jammo (SM247) 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was almost tempted to throw a  tag on this one.  :) --Danielrocks123 talk  contribs 06:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, niche business theory and definate vanity. The entire thing could be housed in a brief mention in a more appropriate article; there is certainly no need to create an exhaustive documentation of his proposals.  Kuru  talk  12:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as CorpCruft. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Userfy if User:Kenstandfield wishes. Delete from main namespace, per nom and per the arguments previously evinced in Articles for deletion/Intangible accounting. Non-neutral attempt to promote original concepts and methodology, which cannot be supported by sources other than a single author. No evidence has been presented that these are legitimate, widely-recognized concepts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pascal.Tesson 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Total chuff --Charlesknight 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and file under "Qué?". Anand 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask original author for cleanup. If it isn't, delete or userfy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all of the above. I second the motion to "...send Ken Standfield to bed without supper." Doc Tropics 02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I struck out my frivolous remark which bit a newcomer. I apologized to Ken on his Talkpage and I want to repeat my apology here. Sometimes I get carried away and forget that people frequently put a lot of work into an article without being clear on all of our myriad standards and policies. That's still no excuse for biting and I'm sorry for it. --Doc Tropics 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to apologies for offending the people who have posted their comments here, it was not my intention. As I am new to Wikipedia, I was wondering if I could ask for some contructive guidance on what could be done to create an entry that would be acceptable to all those here?
 * The standards are generally referred to as 'intangible standards'
 * Intangible standards are a new idea and I had hoped that Wikipedia could provide a way in which to create discussion and advancement on the topic. How this advancement occurs is uncontrollable by any specific person or organization - it is more about sharing and interaction.  Was this a fair position for me to assume?
 * I'd very much appreciate constructive feedback so I can save your time flaming me for future regarding postings.
 * PS: After reading your comments I have been to bed without supper, apologies again.
 * -- KenStandfield
 * For reference, I have posted an explanation response on Ken's talk page here: . --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy then. (This means moving the article into userspace, instead of article space, so it would be at User:Kenstandfield/International intangible standards. That would give you time to improve the article at your own pace, and it could then be listed at deletion review. If you didn't manage to get the article up to speed, well, it's your userspace. I see you've already gotten contructive feedback on your user page, as well as offers for further help. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Userfy should have been suggested earlier. Userfying does amount to deletion from the main article namespace, of course. Adding "userfy" to my suggestion above. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 25 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.