Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry had the idea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, unverifiable protologism. The information, if relevant, would belong at the Larry Sanger article anyway. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 07:18Z

[edit] Larry had the idea

Larry had the idea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article describes a phrase which is purported to be a meme referring to people taking credit for other people's ideas. The phrase garners few Google hits, none of which clearly use it as a meme; rather, the Google hits refer to people named Larry having ideas. There are no Google Groups hits at all for the phrase. Normally I would have taken this to WP:PROD instead of WP:AFD, but the article is mostly about Larry Sanger ceasing to receive credit for having the idea of establishing Wikipedia. Consequently, the deletion of this article should take place under the open process so nobody accuses anyone of trying to cover up an article for portraying Jimmy Wales in a negative light. Regardless of anything else, though, the phrase "Larry had the idea" has no notability in itself, and this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree, per nom. This just has no use for as encyclopedic content. --Tohru Honda13Sign here! 08:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - suggest to wikitionary Tonytypoon 08:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Self-referential. MER-C 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree 100% with nom. - Aagtbdfoua 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at the risk of being called one of Jimbo's minions, this page is little more than an attempt to get self-referential criticism in through the backdoor. Danny Lilithborne 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously self-referential and utterly non-notable outside of the WP community (which is itself, frankly, not all that notable). Might be acceptable within Wikipedia: space or User: space, but definitely not for main. Xtifr tälk 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism, attack page, essay, non-notable, original research, and quite possibly things made up in school one day. Koweja 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NOR, WP:ATK, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTE. Yuser31415 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - protologism, original research, attack page, self-referential... -- The Anome 01:32, 1 January 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.