Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn'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. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn's Law[edit]

minor non-notable variation of Godwin's law A Ramachandran 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only citation it gives is a proposal to implement. A google search ("quinn's law" -wikipedia -o'quinn) turns up many different definitions that aren't even remotely related to Godwin's Law. This can't even be logically merged due to the inability to cite this one for uniqueness since there are so many. Delete. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StrongKeep Per WP:Notability. Like Godwin's Law, this law is largely unknown outside of the internet community. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. MER-C 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. Cannot find anything relavant to Godwin's Law. Ter e nc e Ong 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NFT. --Sable232 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Godwin's Law variation. JIP | Talk 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something someone on Slashdot made up one day just 7 months ago is not notable unless it has substantial wider usage, coverage, and reference. Instead, this article has five "references", 2 of which are to Slashdot, and the other 3 of which are self-refs to other WP articles. Nowhere near inclusion standards. Serpent's Choice 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT for something made up on /. one day, has no WP:RS coverage. Apparently largely unknown inside the Internet community as well! Aside: if I make up a Kinu's Law and say As something pops up on t3h intarw3b and continues to become non-notable, the probability of someone creating a Wikipedia article for it approaches 1, can I get an article about me? Anyone... Bueller? Bueller? Oh well, it was worth a shot. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not quite up there with George's Law. Uncle G 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Folantin 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. This almost makes me want to write a corollary to WP:NFT that says "Wikipedia is not for your Godwin's Law rip-off". We can call it "Isotope's Law"...--Isotope23 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slashdotcruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu's corollary to Quinn's nonexistant law. SkierRMH!

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.