Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorn'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 of the debate was No consensus. There is already a debate about keep, merge, or redirect, and that can be continued outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorn's Law

There has been a discussion as to whether to merge, keep, or delete this. The discussion revealed a few things. This "law" was made up by Eric Zorn and he mentioned it in his blog. It has not been used widely elsewhere. He himself then created the page here in order to publicize it, and even referred to his use of wikipedia for publicity purposes a "whim and a stunt" [1]. I think based on the fact that it is a neologism that has yet to catch on, combined with the fact that it appears to violate WP:NOT, and evidence that the originator is trying to use wikipedia to publicise his own work, I do not even think it is worth a merge - just delete it. Bachrach44 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete whether or not the 'law' is mentioned on the Eric Zorn page this one should be deleted, i.e. not redirected. Eluchil404 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Rob 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's a reason I read his column in the Trib and never go near his blog. Fan1967 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per "whim and a stunt." Now if Kass came up with a law, maybe... --JChap 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• merge into Eric Zorn. Is there no room for this bit of trivia on his page? Adambiswanger1 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cheesy attempt at self-promotion. · rodii · 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the law ever becomes widely used (and this can be verified), then I have no problem bringing the law back to life. But at this point, it's a neologism, and not encyclopedic. --EngineerScotty 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Get a life - oh, didn't work, so delete. Jammo (SM247) 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Eric Zorn. I prefer John Zorn, myself. -- GWO
• Merge to Eric Zorn. JIP | Talk 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete "made up and posted on his blog"... goodbye. Someone AFD Eric Zorn as well, while you are at it.... and let me know so I can show up and vote delete on that too. - Motor (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Much as I'd like to, I suspect a daily column in the Chicago Tribune makes you notable, like John Kass. His blog, however, is not notable. Fan1967 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think just having a column in a newspaper makes you notable. If it's widely referenced by others (not bloggers)... that does make you notable. - Motor (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Eric Zorn. Also, a note: it is self-promotion and all of those things, but he obviously didn't know the rules. No need for the snark. -- Superdosh 14:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and rodii. Paddles ^T_C 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Joyous! | Talk 16:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. -- Docether 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Eric Zorn per Adambiswanger1. --Zoz (t) 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Get a life (which has to be distinguished from Get a Life for it to make sense. . Never mind, Delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zorn's Lemma. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea. Never been that clear on the difference between a lemma and a law or theorem anyway. And Eric can't complain if it's redirecting to his grandfather's work. Fan1967 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or delete. --JJay 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zorn's Lemma per Zetawoof. Much more valuable to Wikipedia as a redirect to something that actually matters, than the rubbish that's there now. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think the redirect makes much sense. There is a real difference between laws and lemmas. I think a delete makes more sense if the merge doesn't work out. -- Superdosh 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To the non-mathematician, the distinction is pretty subtle. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:50, 12 June 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.