Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 6

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. Sandstein 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 6

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

article clearly shows this is a highly nonnotable term in this context, unlike the monty python link provided. no references provided show any evidence for notability to permit an article to be written. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 7: Delete Rule 6. Urban Dictionary has not one but two listings for Rule 6,[1][2] but this particular one is so inconsequential, it isn't included in either. Nor has anybody else picked up on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <lame>That does explain why six was afraid of seven.</lame> - Sudo Ghost 06:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No articles other then those with reliable sources, passing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC will be tolerated. Any deletion consensus will result in the article being asked to leave the encyclopedia for the remaining time of the Internet. (But in all seriousness, the article fails WP:GNG, with no independent third-party reliable sources showing any notability. The Red Lion Inn doesn't show this being notable, and the other three sources are not reliable sources.) - Sudo Ghost 05:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, Chris is a fairly reliable source for fannish matters; but even taking his contribution into account, and much as I love fan history, this simply doesn't add up to genuine notability for a global dictionary project. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is the dictionary. This project is the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (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.