Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilcox-McCandlish law (2nd nomination)

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. Dakota 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox-McCandlish law[edit]

This article was deleted by me after the original AFD. However, the main editor has disputed the validity of the deletion and since there were few comments, I have undeleted it and re-opened this AFD. No vote from me as it is a procedural nomination. Yomangani ^talk 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first nomination

Strong, firm delete per original AfD nom; utterly non-notable neologism. Xtifr _tälk 10:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of no use as an article here, breaks just about every relevant policy I can bring to mind. doktorb _words^deeds 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do like defending various bits of web or net history, but delete as basically WP:NFT. If it had been picked up and widely used, cf. Godwin's Law, that would be one thing. --Dhartung | Talk 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the reasons given in the first afd. Just not notable enough. MER-C 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." Not notable. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nom. I should have contacted the creator of the article, but I assumed that he would notice the AfD on his watchlist. Nevertheless, the original nomination was entirely sound, as this article satisfies at least two criteria for deletion - it is a non-notable neologism and there is a clear conflict of interest.--Nydas 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be true, but there is no evidence that it is notable. The citations are basically back to the subject/apparent creater of the article. Get it written up in Wired and the New York Times and then re-create the article. Edison 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the first AfD nomination, the article has not been updated with any references to the print media or other reliable sources.This leads me to repeat my original opinion. Not referred to in any printed media, so far as I can tell. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, which says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." A NY Times article would certainly suffice, but cites in online forums don't seem sufficient. Especially with only 501 Google hits. Wikipedia should not be the means of publicizing a neologism. EdJohnston 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Go ahead and delete it. Or, rather, I request that it and its subpages be moved into my user space for now; I haven't had time to address the actually legitimate concerns raised here (and refute the illegitimate ones), but I do intend to eventually. I have too much on my plate right now to improve and defend this article (and, yes, I do realize that it does have some genuine problems.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:09, 18 November 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.