Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilcox-McCandlish 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 - Yomangani^talk 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilcox-McCandlish law

Yet another unimportant Internet 'law'. Whilst the creator of this article and joint creator of the phrase, User:SMcCandlish, is a Wikipedian of good standing, this phrase has little notability. It gets 153 Ghits [1], mostly blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. For an internet fad, that's virtually nothing. There are no reliable, third party sources to be found on this phrase anywhere. There are also serious problems with original research and article ownership - the talk page is filled with blog-like musings on the 'law' and its 'corollaries'. Nydas 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Non-notable neologism. doktorb _words^deeds 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While the article needs work, and the number of page hits is low, many of those that did pop up are encyclopedia-type sites, and one on the first page is actually a debate that invokes the Wildcox-McCandlish Law. It may not generate many page hits, but it is used.Alternator 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not referred to in any printed media, so far as I can tell. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, which says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." A NY Times article would certainly suffice, but cites in online forums don't seem sufficient. Especially with only 753 Google hits. EdJohnston 18:19, 15 October 2006 (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.