Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7PPrinciple
Article 7 P Principle listed on WP:VFD Apr 21 to Apr 27 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:
- Errrr... has anyone heard of this? And if so, why does it need to be an article? Isomorphic 22:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a real principle. If you delete this, then why not delete the article about Murphy's Law and its children? Auric The Rad 22:46, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Murphy's Law is very well-known and has an interesting history. What more is going to be said about the 7 P Principle? Isomorphic 23:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a real principle. If you delete this, then why not delete the article about Murphy's Law and its children? Auric The Rad 22:46, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
- It is real. No vote on whether it is encyclopedic. Rossami 22:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Seems like second-rate pep-talk material to me. Unencyclopedic. Rhymeless 04:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Stupid sayings seldom survive serious scrutiny. Delete. Soon. Denni 06:56, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, such statements sustain speedy silencing. I mean deletion. Postdlf 00:19 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- We wish weak, worthless writing would wither without warranting Wikipedian warfare... Delete. Pteron 06:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic and no real hope of expansion. If someone can expand it a la Murphy's Law, it should stay. Otherwise: Dumb dicdefs don't deserve due distribution, dammit. Next...? - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like the sort of thing that Guss from Drop The Dead Donkey would come out with. Funny. Delete. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Don't detain dumb diction's destruction - Tεxτurε 15:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Recommend deleting this article, saving this discussion. Well, okay. Not. Denni 16:21, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
End discussion