Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'Elboux My Elbow

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. Shimeru (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'Elboux My Elbow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable (

reliable sources. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 12:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Notable and reliable source has been cited. Please do no delete.--Alxs47 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability is made in the article anywhere. Only source provided is to a restricted blog (unverifiable primary source). I'm finding zero mentions of this anywhere, news, web, books, etc.--RadioFan (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (if possible) What is the "Neo-Seuss community"? (Or do I really want to know?) Not a ghit for "Neo-Seuss", apart from here and one totally irrelevant coming together of the words on the Spanish Yahoo Answers (not a reliable source even if it were applicable). I am not entirely sure of what a 'glog' is, either, but a look at it did not inspire great confidence in its reliability as a source. As to the poem itself, I would suggest that it is not even in the class of works that may become notable but which are barred from article status by
WP:CRYSTAL. I feel that no crystal ball is needed to foresee the future of this effort. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Found out what a Glog is.... No more reliable than a Blog. Peridon (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this article doesn't currently meet any of the

A7. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Closest speedy deletion criteria that might work is G3, as it appears to be a hoax. It will snowball soon enough here though.--RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is speediable per

A7. The poem hasn't been printed and is currently web content. --Pgallert (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

im afraid, it does not.--Alxs47 (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Alxs47 might be right on that point... Peridon (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, there is no specific guideline for artwork notability, and this certainly fails the
original research. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No reliable sources.
talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete. The only thing even remotely close to notability is that it has "over 30 views on the Earth1 Glog". Considering this "glog" is the only place the poem is hosted, that means, by the author's own admitance, only 30 people have read it. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - another reason why
WP:V requirement. Nothing notable here.The-Pope (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (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.