Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference Theory

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--JForget 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Theory

As this article cites no references, it fails WP:V. A Google search yields no results that back up the claims made in this article. I think that would qualify this article as original research, which violates WP:NOR. The origin of the term, as I understand it, is a made up theory used by video game players to explain how they were beaten by a supposedly less skilled opponent. However, as there are no scientific studies or data to back this assertion up, it clearly fails the criteria for inclusion. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:OR. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ioeth, a non-notable bit of jargon about a video game. Not sure how they got from what the article is supposed to be about to the English words of the title, either. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my contested prod, "No claim of notability in article, and no sources offered to show notability. First several pages of non-wiki ghits rarely use this term in this sense, and then only in blogs." --Fabrictramp 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently OR and unverifiable. Dylan 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOL.--SarekOfVulcan 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:NFT? --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. Bjewiki 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was mentioned in an Irish magazine. Please leave the legal mumbo jumbo out of this. No-one talks like you lot do. MagicMons 12:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) — MagicMons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I propose a new vote and blanking of the current votes due to the fact that a new source has been added. Ioeth has accused me of vandalism also, which is grossly unfair. MagicMons 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process is not a vote; it's a discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette. Improvements are (and have been) considered. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability for this term, and if the cited source is this Village Magazine, then my search didn't turn up any article on this subject there, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even if we did find it there, a mention in a single magazine isn't a convincing argument for notability.--Fabrictramp 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's crap (and also the author keeps removing tags and it making false hrassment reports)! Yourname 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Belongs in Wiktionary. Mdmkolbe 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and unverifiable. Hut 8.5 16:42, 26 October 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.