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. v/r - T P 03:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover me

[edit]

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

I don't believe this to be a particularly encyclopaedic or worthwhile addition to Wiki. It appears to be, and in fact openly states, that it is an urban legend of questionable authenticity/origins. I can only find two references to it outside the Wiki world, one a questionable RS and the other a brief mention in a Law Enforcement procedural googlebook where it also states it is an urban legend, where the parties involved are often switched around depending on who is telling the story. As an anecdote of iffy origins, I don't see it demonstrating any relevance or cultural significance regarding the Rodney King riots or any other riot situation. I therefore believe it fails WP:GNG, WP:NRVE and WP:EVENT. I am keen to sample consensus on this. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment SGGN. I find myself surprisingly neutral on this as the article creator, I would never imagine in fact that I'd find myself contributing an article to the category:urban legends. Not only that but I fully agree with your sentiment that it is (a) "an anecdote of iffy origins," (understatement) (b) that "I don't see it demonstrating any relevance or cultural significance regarding the Rodney King riots or any other riot situation." (me neither, also understatement), and (c) it fails WP:Notability (event) by a yawning chasm.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

guess what I went to check the sources to see whether we could expand on whether or not this met the WP:General notability guideline for category:urban legends, or whether it met WP:Notability requires verifiable evidence for category:urban legends beyond two serious sources, 2006 and 2010, both describing it as an "urban legend." ....and it turns out that while it may have grown into notability as an urban legend (turning National Guard into Marines and so on), it is based on an account by the commander of the National Guard during the 1992 riots. In other words, it's not just an urban legend. Who'd have thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I would have supported this in the category:urban legends, but now it turns out to be category:English phrases category:law enforcement terminology, the article has been moved to the more neutral title cover me, and I'm neutral. I am tempted to think a move to James. D. Delk in category:military writers might be an alternative, but it would need someone with more knowledge of articles like 40th Infantry Division (United States) to make a call on that. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well if an AfD turns what I felt to be a questionable article into one that contributes positively to Wikipedia then, in a roundabout way, we have a positive outcome. We will see what the others say. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability as an urban legend, and seems like a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(note that the category:urban legends is now suspect and category:Law enforcement terminology would be primary)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP, and it's very surprising that In ictu would create such a poorly-researched shoddy piece of work when one considers the amount of time and energy he has been expanding lately riling up Judaic editors with his own "demands" for sources. See some summaries of the problems about "sources" and names In ictu raises and causes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:In ictu oculi's disruptive edits and User talk:Lisa#Consensus and edit warring with the same "faults" he openly displays here that may well-merit an ANI investigation or complaint of what exactly he is up to. IZAK (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IZAK, ...this is kind of stalky... In ictu oculi (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In Ictu, I was on your talk page to leave an unrelated message and noticed this AfD notification, so I came here and took a look. I am rather surprised that you can come up with kind of shoddy "workmanship" when you are so demanding of the Hebraized articles. What's up doc? Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to say, I kind of liked it, but I think I have to agree with User:IZAK on this one. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:57, 14 December 2011 (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.