Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authorgeddon


 * 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. Carioca 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Authorgeddon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like OR. Recommend delete Dchall1 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No WP:RS provided. Boarderline WP:BOLLOCKS. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Seems to stem from one article (from which is could be sourced). But I don't find this notable, it is nothing more than a fancy name for the day two lines in a statistic meet. Unless, of course, we find some sources which indicate this term is being used in actual discussion among publishers, critics, or what-have-you. Lundse 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Until the term is used by outside sources, it is OR.--Danaman5 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely looks like OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not able to find anything that meets WP:RS that mentions this term. It all seems to be quotes and reprints of the original material by lulu.com.  --User: (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2007 (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.