Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dartmouth Plan


 * 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. – Avi 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dartmouth Plan
Not notable, not verifiable, no actual content Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The article describes a political plan that is only available by applying to receive it via a Gmail address. The article does not describe the plan in any detail. The plan has not been written about in any major media. Most of the linked sources are general and irrelevant. The only place the plan has even been discussed is astroturfing in blog comments. If it exists and is reaching opinion makers, it would have been talked about by now, but Technorati shows no current discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX; couldn't find anything relevant on Google (most of the results are from Wikipedia mirrors and a New York financial company also known as Dartmouth Plan)--TBC TaLk?!?  06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified & unsourced original research. 893 Ghits which are false positives when WP & mirrors are excluded.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - in addition, User:Sammy Houston has only contributed to this one article.  Most probably a hoax.    ''Em-jay-es  06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is more crank than hoax, actually. The promoter seems to have exactly the wrong idea about how to disseminate ideas today (e.g. talk about the plan on Blogspot). And a meaningless Wikipedia article (suspected WP:VAIN being another reason). --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-verifiable. SM247 My Talk  01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons above and why would it be sent to Michael Dukakis??? -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's an old Hollywood joke about the starlet so dumb, she slept with the writer. Viz., the least influential person possible ... --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above. Meekohi 05:59, 6 July 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.