Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stomp Law

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. → Call me Hahc21 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stomp Law

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

Neologism, with neutrality problems. There are certainly google hits for "Stomp law" - an unrelated law firm on the other side of the world. This article draws sweeping national, legal, and social conclusions from a scattering of sources which don't even mention "stomp law" - this neologism is founded on original research. bobrayner (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NEO, and could confuse a moron in a hurry that this is an actually legislation or a law firm. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no mention of this in any reliable source whatsoever, or even unreliable sources except those based on Wikipedia. Does not come anywhere near meeting notability requirements. Agyle (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search failed to find any reliable hits, excluding those that are based on this Wikipedia article. I would not be surprised if the article creator coined the term in this context; as such, if A11 existed in October 2013 when this article was created, it should have been deleted as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of background information: Two hours after the page was started, an overenthusiastic New Pages Patroller tagged it as CSD A1. That was, rightly, declined. Since it's been around for a while, and a previous CSD was declined, I decided to go down the AfD path, so that wiser and sharper intellects than mine could weigh in.

bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2014 (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.