Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportionate pirate 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 Deleted this patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proportionate pirate law[edit]

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{nonsense}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case based on what I see on the talk page. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valid cliche' found in film, and literature study books.NubianPrince 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless empirical evidence can be shown to its existence; a Google search yields NO hits. --Mhking 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a variant spelling of The Proportional Pirate Law which was previously deleted. There are no independent reliable sources for that, either; most of the Google hits refer to Wikipedia or its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cited a textbook which discussed it. I personally would prefer it to be included in a seperate article, for example, stormtrooper effect however, it seems to get deleted constantly. I reviewed the history, and it seems as if the inclusion of the topic included more information. Most of which was entirely POV. However, the POV part of the statement--most of which was gibberish--has been deleted. In essence, the article has been cleaned up. In fact, it now contains the same number of cites that the entire storm trooper effect article. Not to mention, the mention of the inverse ninja law which contains no citations, though it is also mentioned in the textbook I cited. Simply doing a google search does not eliminate the fact it meets WP:notability since it is discussed by independent sources. NubianPrince 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per Metropolitan90. Danny Lilithborne 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons above. Fan-1967 23:26, 7 December 2006 (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.