Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace's Law


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ace&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, made up in school one day. Previously prodded by someone else but was removed by an IP, so just to be safe, put up for a real AFD. Kuronue | Talk 01:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made up during a creationist discussion one day. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 02:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not in any way, shape or form notable, nor even memorable, as an adage should be. Sorry, Ace.  Ψν Psinu 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:LONELYBEACONSLAW - anytime anyone comes up with something they think is clever, they invariably write a Wikipedia article about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, "Ace"s, another article that fails WP:NEO! (I'm sorry) Lankiveil (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's123 review me 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. We should have a CSD for articles that assert non-notability and prove that they fail WP:NFT in the article content.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be a clear example of something not suitable for Wikipedia. JavaTenor (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete hahaha what 74.139.233.170 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 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.