Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revelstoke conjecture

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revelstoke conjecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. Reference is a non-specific interview, not available as far as I could find. No references on google or other search engines. Could not find anything under quoted interviewee name either. LouScheffer (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find anything either. Sure, anyone can make up such a conjecture, but other people need to notice it and publish about it for it to be notable. --Itub (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per good faith efforts to establish notability where there wasn't any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-verifiable. And extremely hoax-y. --Lockley (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (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.