Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite loop (Cite)

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. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite loop (Cite)

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

Author removed prod for this non-notable, unrecognized concept. Apparently original research or a neologism. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently some kind of a joke. In any case, it falls under Original research. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb. --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, concept already covered at recursivity, etc. cute, though. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very silly and could be BJAODN material, but we're a little far from April 1. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is useless. Apart from possible original research and lack of sources, it looks like it's actually a meta-article, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (in the main namespace, at least). JIP | Talk 07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it cites itself as a source. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (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.