Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowlett


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rowlett
Article has been awaiting clarification re WP:NOR for over a year, and none has been forthcoming. Lack of verifiability has been documented in Articles for deletion/Russell J. Rowlett, and to repeat what I said there I can't find any evidence of this being in use outside the creator's immediate circle. The vast majority of Google hits are Wiki mirrors. We are either the major source for disseminating a piece of original research, or possibly assisting in the perpetration of a hoax. Neither looks good. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * List of numbers has a table that already includes the list. Perhaps re-direct there if appropriate. Georgia guy 21:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the wikipedia mirrors, there are quite a few other references, though they all appear to be various wikis and other user-edited sites.  I couldn't find any site that actually used the system. This seems to be a very agressive job of self promotion, though I'm open to any evidence that this system is actually used or well known. ManoaChild 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gillion, the first special name on this list, gets lots of Google hits, and a pretty medium-sized fraction of the first few of them are for the number, many of which are the mirror site of a dictionary, and we know WINAD. The larger ones have already been mentioned at List of numbers at one of the lists. Any additional comments yet?? Georgia guy 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because gillion has been in the Jargon File, wholly independently of this proposal, since at least version 3.0.0 in 1993. According to Rowlett's web site, his proposal was created in 2001. Uncle G 00:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the week-plus that we've had Rowlett and similar articles, not one reference or piece of evidence that his numbering method has been submitted to a refereed journal. Until that happens, the numbering system must be considered non-notable or dubious, and since his so-called notariety is based on his numbering system, this article should be deleted as nn.  I repeat: is there any evidence of peer review, discussion by the academic community, or acceptance by anybody not connected to Rowlett?  B.Wind 05:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable, original research. Vanity.  Etc.  --C S (Talk) 03:26, 9 December 2005 (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.