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 was WP:SNOW delete. --Salix alba (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave Jones Interval Averages (DJIA)[edit]

Analysis of lottery numbers. Unencyclopedic. Non-notable. Original research. Etc. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Analysis of lottery numbers.>>>
It's also a rethinking about the nature of time if you give me a chance.

<<<Unencyclopedic.>>>
Not true many businesses state what they do here on Wikipedia.

<<<Non-notable.>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle/Don't_say_non-notable
The subject matter has a very wide interest, and all charts and tables can be independently confirmed.

<<<Original research. Etc>>>
What's so original about timelines or chronologies?
Lottery enthusiast and players always want to know how long ago a number was drawn so I simply set up charts to measure that in the timelines.
I invite anyone to show me a complex preconcived idea less fundamental than ordering events in time, and the space between events.
IT'S SIMPLY A VERY CLOSE LOOK USING SPACE AND TIME...
OR THE SPACE OF TIME!

Dave Jones (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.167.46 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

DELETE!' ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Sheesh! 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We use frequency analysis, timelines, and charts please SAY CONCEPTUALLY WHAT IS NEW!!!!Dave Jones (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate...? Mix ^Sup? 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure that there's some poor fool out there who would pay for a service that looks for trends in what numbers have been picked so that they can get an "edge" on what numbers to pick tomorrow. However, until the ping-pong balls can make intelligent decisions, the odds will remain the same every day. Good luck on tonight's Powerball... Go with 10, 15, 16, 23 and 31, and take "5" for the powerball, so you can split the $173 million with me. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Where to start? Unencyclopaedic. Original Research. Conflict of Interest. Self promotional. Inappropriate tone. Unreferenced. Created by single purpose self promotional account. Non-notable. I'm sure there's more. Canterbury Tail talk 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we have a word for what Canterbury Tail is trying to say -- vanispamcruftisement -- and I haven't seen such an illustrative example in some time. It's not notable, so it's vanity. It's pumping a business, so it's spam. It goes into great unencyclopedic detail about whatever it is, so it's cruft. And it's soapboxing, hence advertisement. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, synthesizing published mateiral is still considered original research. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- Article is full of original research, has no reliable sources to verify the content. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable self-promotional original research. --DAJF (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (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.