Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-week rule

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 - Delete under Speedy G3 (Vandalism) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eight-week rule[edit]

I live in Australia and I have never heard of this dating 'rule'. This article contains no sources and my attempts to verify this rule have not confirmed its existence. There are many other eight-week rules, in obstetrics, retailing and government/law, that could occupy this article's namespace. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under the 8 week rule of lack of commitment. I tried it but didn't like it. Now why can't I find a Speedy category for it? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, admits its own unverifiability. WillOakland (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this does exist, it is unlikely to be notable because it cannot be backed up by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. For what's supposedly a "widely used" term, it doesn't seem to show up much even on blogs or talk pages [1]. The question of "How long should we be dating before we ______" is discussed a lot, of course. Maybe someone can create a "dating wiki" with articles like this, and even a "Relationships for deletion forum" where people can !vote "stay together", "break up", or "merge, tonight". Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a dating wiki, Mandsford. You can request all sorts of privileges here. For example, you can make a 'request for rollback'. Go to 'my preferences' and select what you want - I've ticked 'hotcat' (if ya know what I mean) and 'friendly'. I don't understand people who tick 'Twinkle' but that's available too. If your popups are disabled, get that fixed first. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that made me laugh out loud. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I put a hoax template on the article, just to let you know. Jonathan321 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM#Articles on neologisms. Flowanda | Talk 06:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blog post pretty much confirms that this term is an invention of the author of the article --Xorkl000 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been speedied (WP:G3) under the "eight-minute rule". WWGB (talk) 10:55, 1 December 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.