Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rules of Accumulation

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 speedy delete. Calling it an hoax was a bit cruel. But,at best this would be deletable as original research so IAR and zap it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Accumulation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Fictitious set of rules" (quoted from article) with only references being "user's own knowledge, quotes, personal motto and mother's opinion". Would have speedied it but wasn't sure what criteria to use. LordVetinari (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as original research. Actually, quite a lot has been written about gamblers' behaviour and on the superstitions, rationalisations, etc that they follow, eg Gambler's fallacy. But Wikipedia is not a place to publish our own thoughts on a topic. AJHingston (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article violates more of our policies and guidelines than I care to list. It is a wierd mix of something made up referenced to the exact opposite of reliable sources.Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~However, I do give the article creator credit for audacity in creating~~ an article sourced only to "User's personal knowledge. Resident and gambler in Bristol", "User was personally quoted as saying this", "User's own personal motto", and "User's mother believes this to be true." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck out part of my comment in light of the article creator's comments below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly informative article with regard to a widely appreciated set of rules. Many users looking to find a list of the mythical laws of accumulation betting will be highly satisfied when finding them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.126 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page provided me with vital insight into the laws of accumilation. Last week if it weren't for this page and my strict following of the laws thusly laid out my accumilator would not have successfully come through. I am highly grateful to the user who created the page and wish him all but success of his continued following of said laws and hope his accumilator destiny will be as fulfilled as my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.99 (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is based on superstitious theories it doesn't mean it can't still provide a useful insight into the culture of an area and some people's beliefs in supernatural phenomena. I for one thought this was a very interesting and well written article that provided an insightful look into this particular area of human psychology. I cannot understand why it would be deleted just because someone doesn't personally agree with these beliefs, would you also suggest to delete a page about religion? If your only grounds for deleting this article are that they were invented by human beings then please allow me to suggest that we delete the other 99.99% of wikipedia pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyrovers (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 March 2011
- Stanley, when you say that the article was "very interesting and well written", I believe that you may be biased in that opinion, given that you wrote almost the entire article yourself. This bias is natural and understandable, but it needs to be taken into consideration here. Furthermore, the concern that I and most of the other "delete" recommenders have is not that we don't "personally agree with these beliefs" or that these rules were "invented by human beings", but that the rules are sourced only to your own personal knowledge, your personal statements, your personal motto, and your mother's beliefs. I actually thought that, when you used those as "references" in the article, that you were making a joke and satirizing the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and then review the article and this AfD discussion in light of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saddos. keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.177.29 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90, I am sorry but to have to side with the article's creator here. The standing for this page comes not just from his mother's opinion or his own experience. I have followed these guidelines ever since our baby Jesus blessed me with the 18th year on this planet and hence I could present myself before the counter in such refuges as William Hill and Coral (NB, other bookmakers exist). I consider it highly prejudice to remove this page purely down to your personal opinion of it being invalid. Your case for removal lacks substance, and I have just the same case for arguing this highly influential page's existence. By removing these laws not only do I consider this as a mockery of my almost religious approach to the weekly accumulator bet since the start of my 18th year, but also I believe you are removing the hope of thousands who seek refuge to their accumulator, for some it truly is all they have, and these laws are the backbone of their day-to-day lives. I speak not from opinion but from personal experience. Please do not remove these globally renowned rules, I hold them close to the hearts of me and my people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.208.126 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3; article so tagged. Clearly WP:MADEUP; speedy deletable as a hoax. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2011 (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.