Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footnote fraud

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote fraud[edit]

Unsourced neologism, no assertion of notability. ~~Claim of a Wikipedia policy using that term.~~Actually, it is simply the etymology of the term according to various Wikipedia articles. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be construed as a definition, WP:NOT a dictionary. Find a home for it somewhere else (no experience myself), but not appropriate for WP. alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. 8 ghits, not all even in ballpark. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, either. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:NEO. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear from the article what it is even talking about. I suspect that there's a real concept, with an accepted name, being discussed here, and Capture88 (talk · contribs) simply doesn't know the name for what xe wants to write about. But it's not clear from the article what that is. The article's description is self-contradictory, and one is thus left solely with the title, which isn't the name of anything that I can find. I can see no way, sans the creator explaining what xe was intending to write about, in which this can be made into a proper article. There are no sources cited from which one could work out what the creator was writing about, there are no sources to be found, and there's practically no context in the article that editors can use to figure out what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cover the basic concept at fine print, actually. Not to mention false advertising and argument from authority. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fine print. —Encephalon 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this even about? All i got was that the author of this article used Wikipedia as a source (how meta). This seems to be a bungled entry into WP:HUMOR Doc Strange (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR, essay, nonsensical.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:24, 31 December 2007 (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.