Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates' Law (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Gates' Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The single given reference supports nothing more than a dictdef. The rest of the article is a complete fabrication. The Jargon File is hardly a reliable reference, anyway. No substantiation of any of the assertions here are available; removing them would leave that dictdef only, so let's just delete it. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've found two sources for this but they describe two other different laws:
- Quattrone's real crime is that he violated the 'Bill Gates law' -- his competence made him too much money too soon - San Jose Mercury News
- Dubbed "Gates' law" by Context editor-in-chief Paul Carroll,... the article states that within a decade, business information will become available to everyone, transforming the way corporations compete. - Context magazine.
- My version is the richer you are, the more people like to make fun of you. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can't even find this on really old USENET (Google Groups), which may or may not have been its origin. Although do note that the Jargon File in one form was expanded and published as The (New) Hacker's Dictionary. That wouldn't really make an entry notable by itself, still. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really encyclopedic. It's a curious joke, but doesn't seem to be widespread enough to be notable. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2008 (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.