- 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. Flowerparty■ 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent commercial/vanity page (article's creator is one of the subjects and all his edits appear to be done to point at this page.) --Calair 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as clearly advertising for non-notable company. Joe 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. →AzaToth 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove individuals names. Effectivity is currently used with different meanings, among which definition mentioned. It is not the same as effectiveness and/or efficiency. The word cannot be found in older dictionaries.
- I'm not opposed to a genuine article about effectivity (either here or on Wiktionary, depending on content) but I think it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. While some of the more flagrant bits have been deleted, it's still written more like a sales pitch than an encyclopaedia article. (Note that it still claims 'effectivity' as a trademarked term - so this is really an article about one non-notable company's marketing of the concept, rather than the concept as a whole.) --Calair 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.