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.
Article isn't encyclopedic, rather, it is more like an urbandictionary definition. Bensci54 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced urban unsense, like the author's additions to the Dilbert and the Peter principles. The urban dictionary more than covers what needs to be said on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact a properly verifiable Rule Zero. It was prepended to Codd's 12 rules by Edgar F. Codd in Codd 1990, p. 16–17. If there's nothing left after the unverifiable nonsense and stuff sourced to a book self-published via Lulu is excised, I suggest a redirect to Codd's 12 rules. Yes, I realize that our article doesn't even mention that RM/V2 had 333 rules, or that Rule Zero was an addition to the original twelve rules from 1985, or really explain any of the history adequately. Anyone reading this should feel free to take the three sources that I've just added to the article, or indeed any of the many more that exist that I didn't, in hand and make it better explain all this, if only for the benefit of the people on the talk page who have been wondering why there are thirteen rules since 2004. ☺
Delete without prejudice to recreation of specific articles. There are a few sources there for specific contexts, but that's not really what you want for an article (unless the article is a list, which this clearly doesn't qualify for.) But split out, these topics are too narrow to stand alone, though I honestly don't know where you might merge/redirect them. In role-playing games discussion, Rule Zero is actually cited pretty often, but I'm surprised the author actually came up with some references. - Sangrolu (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. KEEP. Do not Delete. Article describes useful alternative definitions of a frequently-used term. It may be worth adding material from Codd, or linking to Codd. EMScatt (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMScatt (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument, and that WP:NOTDICT says Wikipedia is not for definitions of terms, frequently-used or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable trivia with no reliable source. Mcewan (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2013 (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.