Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubric Friedrick


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubric Friedrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete This article might or might not be a hoax. I found no sources for it or for the educator Friedrick Lutz or Friedrich Lutz after whom the rubric is supposedly named. The source listed in the article was not found in German bibliographic sources nor in WordlCat, variations were tried. So, if not a hoax, (1) notability is lacking as there is no significant coverage, the term is not used; (2) nothing in this article is verifiable; and (3) there are no reliable sources. Any one of which should be grounds for deletion. The author removed the prod placed on the article by Ben Ben on 3 November. I have not recommended speedy deletion since I am only 85%–90% certain that it is a hoax. I have been wrong before. I have just completed researching on a real Friedrich Lutz, the Bavarian politician, and found a likely notable economist with that name, but nothing on this. Even if not a hoax, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia for lack of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale. Also, it uses the world "flange", which is a dead giveaway.  Morwen (Talk) 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is also no real content here of what this rubric might be. But it's safe to say that it doesn't have anything to do with pipe fittings or railroad wheels. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  16:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let's generously call it a non-notable concept. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough sources, per WP:GNG. --Ben Ben (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2012 (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.