Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"King Of The Hill" Syndrome


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 06:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"King Of The Hill" Syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article lacks any reliable sources that would allow the reader to verify its content or assess its notability. Per the author's comments at the talk page, there will be evidence for this theory "in 12 months". Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article should be deleted until the evidence is available in published, third party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sparthorse (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I declined the G3 speedy on this page because nonreliable sources apparently discuss it, so it's quite possibly not a hoax.  However, the apparent absence of reliable source coverage means that we likely shouldn't have an article on it, and the burden of proof is on the creator to find those reliable sources.  Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When the sources exist, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. If reliable sources will be available in a few months, then the article is premature and should be deleted. Now, if those sources do come out and do show that there's some notability here, then perhaps we need to revisit this one. But not today. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:28, 1 November 2011 (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.