Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minkowski Challenge

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. -- Steel 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minkowski Challenge

Not notable: "Minkowski Challenge" only returns one result on Google. Seems to be based on a forum discussion. Cordless Larry 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since when are the goggle searches indicator to the importance of a matter?

Moreover the debate in the forum didn't turn up with the google search, perhaps google is not quite updated on certain forums.

I think that "Paris Hilton" turns up millions of pages on google, far more that Aldous Huxley or William Blake, does this mean that Paris is more important to humanity ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.35 (talk • contribs)

• Hello,

I am Arthur. I have started the article myself. I agree to the anon. before me and i would like also to mention that Cordless Larry has immediately tagged the article as "non sense" just as it was posted. He didn't then mention anything about google searches. It seems that he is not neutral in his essential desire to abolish this entry as soon as possible. Arthur_B 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I nominated it for speedy deletion, and now I'm nominating it under AfD as the previous nomination was contested. I don't have any bias against this kind of article - I'm going by is the fact that a Google search returns very few results, and the high number of red links in the article. I haven't edited or nominated for deletion an article on this topic before. I was just patrolling new articles for notability, and came across this. I'm not sure how the Paris Hilton/Aldous Huxley comparison is relevant. Paris Hilton may well return more results that Huxley, but they both return many results, whereas there is only one for "Minkowski Challenge", so I hardly think the comparison is valid. Cordless Larry 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Larry probably tagged it as nonsense immediately because it appeared to be nonsense. I doubt it's anything personal or any kind of conspiracy.

Verifiability, not truth - A 3rd party needs to have reported on this for it to remain.

Google is not the end all to notability, but it is an accepted method of trying to approximate notability.

With only 1 hit being returned, it looks like something that was made up in school one day. --Onorem 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No chance for this article to become encyclopedia. Violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Notability. --ScienceApologist 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SA. It isn't speedy deletable since it isn't nonsense. JoshuaZ 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As per SA and above. Non-notable.--Ramdrake 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SA and Cordless Larry. AmitDeshwar 01:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, lacks reliable sources. Guettarda 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for all of the above reasons really. Jefffire 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons, also note the book author's website suggests a non-notable author who doesn't understand Wikpecia licensing. ..dave souza, talk 12:59, 28 September 2006 (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.