Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas-Jung Type Indicator

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 19:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thomas-Jung Type Indicator
I'm not demanding or even asking for deletion; rather, I'm asking for opinions on deletion. Although this is an unusual use of Vfd I hope it's a legitimate one. Of necessity, it's somewhat timewasting, and for this I apologize at the outset.

In order not further to burden the always immense VfD page, I've put a longer question on this article's discussion page. Very briefly, though: should Wikipedia include NPOV (and thence debunking) about fishy-seeming spammed phenomena that aren't particularly notable? Might such attempts be subverted, or anyway end up wasting a lot of time? -- Hoary 08:28, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * Delete based on lack of notability (I'd be happy to change my vote if anyone can find some evidence of notability for this though). --fvw *  23:10, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn scammy recruiting cruft. Wyss 03:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh,  'scamcruft' . I like. --fvw *  03:12, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Greaser 06:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I a lot of spam and I've never come accross this before, nor have I heard of others receiving it. In any case there are plenty of websites out there that analyse this sort of stuff. Thryduulf 23:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.