Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ralakan Corollary

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. Mailer Diablo 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ralakan Corollary[edit]

Article is unsourced, and is reporting on something that was just recently made up, ergo it is not an adage at all as it claims to be, it is original research and is a vanity/autobiography pseudo-article, in this case for the purpose of non-encyclopedic soapboxing [Note: I do not make "non-noteworthy" claims; I don't believe in their relevance because WP:NN is neither Policy nor a Guideline, and thus not actionable.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balfour's Law, which is pretty much the same thing.

Delete You're no Godwin. (The last paragraph contradicts itself.) --Xrblsnggt 11:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits on Google, nn. Mo-Al 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use actionable criteria (i.e. Policies or Guidelines), not NN, which has been sorely abused with regard to AfDs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

Delete. Yet another Godwin's Law "corollary" neologism with no verifiability or support. This ought to be a criterion for speedy deletion.--Grouse 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As author's name is Ralakan, this seems like WP:NFT (which isn't a policy either, really). JChap (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Though as the original AfD reasons on this note (via its wikilinks) indicate, the same reasoning also qualifies it for WP:Vanity and WP:AUTO, which are actionable. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

Delete, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Protologism, unverifiable and unencyclopedic soapboxing. Exo314 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous, recreate if/when it's as well known as TINC or Godwin's Law. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SMcCandlish, why did you remove the {{prod}} that was on the article when posting it to AfD? The article could possibly have been removed by now without the need to take our time on discussing and whatnot. --Grouse 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, see my edit summary for that deletion. As it explains, the WP:-namespace articles on the deletion process say not to use both, that AfD supercedes prod, and that prod should be removed if both occur on same page. You're really asking two question, though. The answer to the latent one is that I made this (and the related "Balfour's Law" wannabe-article) an official AfD instead of just a prod specifically to create a vote history that can be referred to later, both tactically, so that we can nominate for Speedy Deletion if the proponents of these "articles" simply recreate them later, and more strategically, to create a better body of precedent (on Policy/Guideline-actionable grounds - note my discouragement of relying upon NN for voting "Delete") for the removal of such bogus "adages" in the future, of which we are likely to see an increasing number in the months and years to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.