Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coulter'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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Coulter's Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage found of "Coulter's Law", either via Google or gnews. Mentions on minor and user-edited websites is largely it. (The words appear together elsewhere, but not in reference to this tweet.) No sign of meeting WP:GNG. At this point, sourced only to the tweet itself, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue of Ann Coulter tweets. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

– Clear cut delete at this stage; couldn't find any other posts relating to Ann Coulter. Twitter is not a reliable source. Hx7 15:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NEO - all mentions are solely tendentious blog posts, comments, social media... or sourced to Coulter herself. GABgab 15:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, I endorsed the original PROD saying there was no evidence of WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Coulter is notable but that doesn't mean every statement she makes is notable. RA 0808  talkcontribs 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NEO and as failing WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable phrase, no evidence of widespread use. Smartyllama (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (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.