Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pot of Gold 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   speedy delete. 01:03, 12 March 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Pot of Gold Theory" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax (TW)) (view/restore) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pot of Gold Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speedy delete via AfD — Not quite clearly enough a hoax to justify WP:G3, but even if genuine, new, novel, ideosyncratic, and non-notable. T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 20:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a vehicle for spam links. Has no  linked WP:RS sources. --Kudpung (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to  point out here in  case there is any  misunderstanding, that having  no linked sources is just  an additional  comment -  it  is not  a reason  for deletion; unlinked sources are permissible of course so long  as they  comply  with  RS and V.--Kudpung (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete An interesting concept, and I found the numbering of the three items unusual. However, no actual references, and definitely made up if not one day but two (possibly plus recovery time...). I'm not sure about the spam links - as I look at it there's one to a film mentioned in the article, and the other goes to ESPN (despite appearing to be to Facebook). Hardly subjects to be advertising themselves in this sort of way. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the numbering and sources clearly need to be revised. However, I find the concept to be interesting and do not think it is fair to label it "non-notable".  Before anything was notable, it was non-notable.  Smith4747 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is a meatpuppet or Single Purpose Account. Please note Sockpuppet investigations/Bbarton01. DQ.alt  (t)  (e)  18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Nomination sums it up well. The references given can't be serious. Is it original research? Even if it's noteworthy, I don't see where notice has been taken, so it seems not 'notable' at this point. Tkotc (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I would argue that the author is not offering up a novel concept, but rather is quantifying a chain of events and providing reason for such occurance. Furthermore, it is obvious that the name of the theory is a bit over the top, but the underlying mechanics are fairly tangible.Johnbonfreedman1010 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is a meatpuppet or Single Purpose Account. Please note Sockpuppet investigations/Bbarton01. DQ.alt  (t)  (e)  18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment to new posters Whatever the theory is doing is not really relevant without references. Without them, it's original research WP:OR or WP:MADEUP, the latter being more likely. The references must fit WP:RS reliable sources, in order to comply with WP:V verifiability. Yes, this is still a free encyclopaedia, but it does have rules.... Peridon (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Was this theory invented by a leprechaun? --Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Antwerpen Synagoge is a sock of User:אֶפְרָתָה. See SPI investiagtion for details. DQ.alt  (t)  (e)  18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. No indication that this has any notability. RadioFan (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - the lead itself violates two rules - it has red flags of non-notability and speaks of some "up-and-coming" thing. It might eventually mean something, but right now, the body of the article is little more than an essay. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the posters concerns related to WP:OR, and would have to agree as the policy is written. However, it is 2011 and Wikipedia needs to determine a way of verifying a primary source.  In the age of the internet it is embarrassing that we as posters demand WP:RS as currently defined.OrionsGaze (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This user is a meatpuppet or Single Purpose Account. Please note Sockpuppet investigations/Bbarton01. DQ.alt  (t)  (e)  18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally agree. But why on earth did you pick this article to say that in support of? In the age of the internet, it is embarrassing that the creator of this hypothesis did not even bother to do an online survey to support their anecdotal evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to reviewing sysop — In reviewing this discussion, Sockpuppet_investigations/Bbarton01 should be taken into consideration. — T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to TransporterMan I am posting this here to be clear to other editors - I was in fact talking to Smith4747 last night at a gathering and made the post via the same IP address. We are by no means the same person, and I am not supporting his view - my comment had nothing to do with whether or not this issue was "non-notable".  Without the addition of references, it clearly is.  However, a primary source is not considered WP:RS without the support of a secondary source, and I take issue with that.OrionsGaze (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable, unsourced, original research and silly. — Bility (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with previous comment. — Seki1949 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The accusation of meatpuppetry is simply absurd. If "similar grammar" currently passes for evidence, I question the legitimacy of today's judicial system.  In addition, can we please discuss the phrase "not for things made up one day"?  Perhaps this rule just needs a good rebranding, but as stated, the requirement is that the creation of the subject in question spans multiple days.  In order to fully comply, I demand that every article related to a person be deleted, given that most people are created in a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds.  Bbarton01 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom and other delete !voters sum up my thoughts on this article. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 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.