Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The I Can Eat Glass Project


 * 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The I Can Eat Glass Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Old website that does not make any claims to notability. Original website doesn't even exist anymore. ― El Cid ∴∵ 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing to indicate meeting any WP:WEB requirements. SubSeven 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can delete article; it doesn't hurt me because there are no reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reliable sources? Did you see my reason for removing the PROD? 1ne 04:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I believe you're mistaken. I'm nearly certain that the page itself was a reference to the the sample text that Windows uses to show typefaces in Latvian. ― El Cid ∴∵ 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How would they think of that text themselves? 1ne 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't begin to guess. Perhaps the web-master was Latvian. But when it comes to assuming whether the most widely used OS in the world referenced a random website, or a random website referenced the most widely used OS in the world, I'd feel safer assuming the latter. ― El Cid ∴∵ 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd feel safer figuring out who said it first. "Perhaps the web-master was Latvian." Perhaps we don't need guesswork. 1ne 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looking around I really couldn't find anything about the origin of the phrase. Most mentions of the site were blogs that provided a link and a little summary. I'm unsure on how we might go about finding out when it was first used in Windows. I'm not sure whether we would err on the side of inclusion or exclution if we can't find evidence of which proceeded which.


 * Even so, such an "easter-egg" appearance in even such a popular piece of software doesn't fall under the specific criteria set by WP:WEB. I suppose we'd have to determine if such was still grounds for keeping the article. ― El Cid ∴∵ 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No establishment of notability, and even worse, no reliable sources. The information provided in the article appear to be drawn from a geocities page and a blog, neither of which qualify as reliable sources.  The passing (possible) mention in an OS font does not make it "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published work" per the notability guidelines, certainly not unambiguously so.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not only not notable, but just college silliness. --Bejnar 04:37, 4 March 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.