Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagner Speed

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. WP:MADEUP The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Speed

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

Neologism, OR. See the end of the article and talk page that confirm this: something someone thought up two days about and decided to put on WP. Deprodded with extra confirmation that it's OR JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete internet search brings up no significant coverage of the idea.Seasider91 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and WP:COI. Author of article and primary source appear to be one and the same. DarkAudit (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:OR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Qwfp (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I don't think the COI issue is necessarily a problem but WP:NOR and WP:NFT are convincing enough, and the article explicitly states that this was original research made up in a day. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything created on "June 8, 2012" has no place here. Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2012 (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.