Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley's 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley's Law[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's actually several different "Bradley's Laws", none of which match this article.

isi.org "If, in the course of commenting on any particular blog article, a commentator exceeds 600 words cumulatively in either defense of or rebuttal to a published article, that commentator must cease commenting and write an article in response to the piece that has provoked so many words from him, and publish his own article." - See more at: https://home.isi.org/bradleys-law#sthash.g2tdHRWM.dpuf
firehouse.com an actual law, so name in honor of a firefighter.
Physics (temperature)
Ditto (refraction) Kleuske (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11 Maybe its a spam of the article speedy requested as a spam 2607:FB90:6640:6BA0:9200:E422:A42F:72F4 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence of this meaning, although as already mentioned there are certainly many other Bradley's Laws. Not at all notable, I'd strongly suspect it was created by an employee of this Bradley. Fails WP:NEO as neither widely used nor discussed in secondary sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bit of neologism mixed with a but of soapboxing. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 3 April 2017 (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.