Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mierscheid 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mierscheid Law

This is completely fictitious. The last election was in 2005, not 2006. That's assuming it's talking about federal elections, which it doesn't even state. It doesn't give any sources, neither for the election results nor for the crude steel production. It is also full of selective bias (e.g. it solemnly ignores the discrepancy in 1990). — Timwi (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The election year has been changed now by somebody and it has one very good source(I think the government), my german isn't that good but it seems to be on the same subject the graph comes from that source so I don't think they need to reference the data. While the basis of the law may not be completely correct it is not for us on wikipedia to really decide or take judgement. If I thought the idea of gravity is a bit sketchy doesn't give me the right to delete the article. A google search (and I hate people who use google searches in discussion) turns up more sources saying the same thing. So either it is a quite elaborate hoax with little comical value or an article that may need a bit of work, but I definitely think it should be kept around, without a doubt.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way at least place a few fix tags before nominating it to look like you at least tried to be fair.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - When I first read the nomination, I was concerned about its fictitiousness, but it seems to be rather up front about it. However, if this debate does go to deletion, I'd suggest a merge and redirect with Jakob Maria Mierscheid. That said, someone should look at the German article and see what else can be added to it from that, because I think the article can stand on its own. matt91486 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Of course the authorship of the law is fictional, in that the law was invented by one or more anonymous German politicians purporting to be the fictitious MP Jakob Mierscheid. But that makes it particularly noteworthy. The Mierscheid tradition has been carried on by German politicians for a long time. Mierscheid even has an entry on the German Parliament's Web site. The law itself is, of course, not fictional, though it might be a misnomer (being merely a hypothesis) and it might not have been meant seriously. The original version of the law naturally ignores the discrepancy in 1990, because it was published in 1983. Various hypotheses have since been put forward for the discrepancy in 2005, one point being that the 2005 elections were premature and would normally have taken place in 2006. Perhaps these later hypotheses should be added. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC). Have now added something on later refinements.--Boson (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Jakob Maria Mierscheid. Good material, but does not really need its own article. --MCB (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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.