Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skitt'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.  jj137  ♠ 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Skitt's law

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Alleged Internet adage. There are no sources apart the posts themselves, and it does not seem to be in widespread usage today. Big chunks of original research, linking the adage to similar ones and Freudian psychoanalysis. Nydas (Talk) 10:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's concerns. Also lack of anything truly informative no a first-time reader, and all sections which approach something coherent and meaningful to the subject matter are compromised by weasel words.  Pump me  up  10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the widespread use of this term seems to not be verifiable, as per WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak keep reasonably well attested via Google (discussed, not just used), though no clear WP:RS. JJL (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above, and as unsourced WP:OR. Only source that is not to a groups discussion appears to be a personal website.  Cirt (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak keep, same reason as JJL . Greswik (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom's concerns; also is simply an internet usage of a cliche already existing in everyday language; nothing new except the word "flames"Sir Rhosis (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  19:31, 20 December 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.