Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pointy Haired Fallacy

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointy Haired Fallacy

Interesting idea, perhaps, but seems to combine neologism, original research, and lack of verifiability. --Tabor 19:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if anything, because it being a neologism (WP:WIN) drini ☎ 19:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 19:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I remember that particular Dilbert strip. I liked it a lot. I try to keep it in mind when I am among fellow-engineers who assume that what the people on the business side do is easy. The term "pointy-haired fallacy" might not be a bad name for it, although the PHB in Dilbert espouses so many different fallacies that it is not clear why this particular one deserves the name. (Why, the PHB is practically a fallic symbol). Unfortunately "pointy haired fallacy" is clearly a neologism; the term is not in any real use. Zero Google hits!. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- reads as original research. --Simon Cursitor 07:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.