Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poe's 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 as mandated by WP:V, a core policy, because of the lack of reliable sources. The "keep" arguments do not adequately address this issue.  Sandstein  06:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Poe's law

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Poe's law
• Articles for deletion/Poe's law (2nd nomination)

Poe's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism. Doesn't exist beyond some forums on the net; no notable usage. Was deleted before in 2005 for the same reason. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Essentially a stealth vanity page for some random guy on a forum. "Sourced" to the forum itself and urbandictionary. Calling it a neologism would be too kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• comment: ostensibly not a "vanity" page, since it has been created by me, and I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Poe. WP:NOTE should be judged based on the references given based on precedents for adages of online-culture such as Godwin's law, Hofstadter's law, Hutber's law, Ševčenko's law, Wirth's law and other "laws" you may never have heard of. The deletion in 2005 was due to practically no google hits (48). In the meantime, this number has increased by a factor of >100, and the adage is listed in the Urban Dictionary (which I grant you is not the OED). dab (𒁳) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Urbandictionary is notorious for accepting absolutely anything submitted to it, and for having no practical fact-checking whatsoever. Attempting to use it as a source is silly enough, but when it's the only source, well... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom and per Andrew Lenahan. No reliable sources to indicate notability and widespread usage of the term. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep Scienceblogs is often considered a reliable source and a number of their bloggers discuss the notion. See for example [1], [2]. I'm not sure in this case that we considered them to be reliable sources since it isn't directly related to their area of expertise. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Nedinect to Cole slaw as an aterdative to demete. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources (blogs generally don't qualify under WP:RS). One can also say it's a neologism. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Amounts to a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neoblogism. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia to find out what it meant, because I had seen it used so often. If the article hadn't existed, I'd still have been in the dark. Noisy | Talk 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of an argument for a keep is that? Reminds me of Jimbo's quote featured in WP:V:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Too bad it won't be here much longer then. I guess it's back to Google for the curious. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable neologism. Merenta (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I see it a lot, it's actually gaining noteriety since 2005, three whole years ago.

71.62.4.205 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a general WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some verifiable evidence, please? Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - you would never ever ever see this in a real encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.149.39.49 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - If I'm seeing it in the wild, it's notable. --SeanO (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? How about citing a reliable source or giving some policy-based reason? Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My policy is "If I think it's notable, I say 'keep'". Sorry, that's my opinion. You're welcome to yours. --SeanO (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm seeing "poe" as one who mimics fundamentalists here: [3] Rhebus (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A single reference to a blog/discussion forum that does not pass WP:RS. I would like to see actual evidence of sufficiently widespread usage confrmed by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I found this page because I saw a reference to Poe's law and did not know what it is. I am certain I am not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Common term especially in the blogging world, though not commonly understood by the masses. 70.71.196.146 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, not another WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some actual sources, per WP:RS and WP:V? Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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.