Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.L.R. (Free Lunch Ratio)

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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.L.R. (Free Lunch Ratio)[edit]

unnotable neologism/nonsense. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell y'all is that the term is going to be used in my next book, and it is quite prevalent in our company. Other than that, I give up - y'all win. Dealing with book editors is much easier than this.

Ed Williams

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Stormie (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like "Forrest Gump" or "Alice In Wonderland"?

Ed Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by BTORocks (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the link. Not just the name of the page. "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." Emphasis mine. --Stormie (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'll never write about anything else in Wikipedia again. Y'all have articles that have severe integrity issues, and you're worrying about something like this? Damn, just pull it, I'm going on and doing something else instead.

Ed Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.139.224 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a term I've heard before in my company, rather like frequent flyer miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaBathory (talk • contribs)

Note--above user has only one edit, and it is to this page. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. I placed the {{prod}} tag on this before. And anyone who actually types the word "y'all" is probably not a very good source of information. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, snobbishness lives. "Y'all" is probably one of the most commonly used southern slang words in the vernacular, there is even a magazine named that. Eastlaw, I have a BBA, MBA, and have authored three published books that actually sold a lot of copies. I would simply state that deliberately insulting someone because of terminology used as a result of living in a particular region is not a pretty thing.

Delete. Bizarrely, I've heard this term, though in a bit of a different context (more of a they-pay vs. you-pay thing). If there are books that explain it and its use as a business concept, then there might be an article here, but I don't think this one is it. As with everything on this site, we need sources, which this article lacks. Incidentally, I also say y'all on a regular basis. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work at Georgia-Pacific, and I can tell you the term is widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.119.8 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. Only Google hits for "free lunch ratio" (about 23), are about a term that seems to relate to free school meals, and some physics term by the look of it. The same for Google Books, and no hits at all in blogs, or in google news. If the phrase takes off, then an article can be created. Silverfish (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, as per above. Skinny87 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NFT --T-rex 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thing made up one day. The claim it will be used in the author's next book smacks of the crystall ball. (And "Y'all" in written text seems odd, since it is normally spoken rather than written, but has no bearing on whether the article should be kept. Bah now. ) Edison (talk) 15:51, 2 July 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.