Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates' Law

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gates' Law

Non-encyclopedic neologism TigerShark 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Are there no neologisms in Wikipedia? Why should this one be excluded? Rex 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Seems to pass the google test and I'm not sure if it is a neologism Dwstein 21:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Definite keep. I have found references from as far back as 2000. Neologisms relate to the author making the word up, not reflecting the actual use of a word in the world. Here is my cite for it:

"Moore's law is countered by Gate's law, which states something like as computer hardware gets faster and better, software will get more bloated and consume more resources, and implemented more poorly. Microsoft has lived up to Gate's law quite well, and I don't think there can be any argument there." http://forums.macnn.com/archive/index.php/t-93015.html This was from 8/7/2000.

It is not a neologism because it is not new, and the author is not coining it, but reporting on something already in use. Cyferx 21:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Neologisms do not neccessarily relate to the author making them up. If somebody invents a neologism and then I write an article on it, it is still an neologism. As to how new they have to be, I am not aware of a specific rule. TigerShark 21:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would say that there are a lot of neologisms in the world, every day, new words are created. It would seem that we could not use new words until they got old, like Wiki could use 'rap' because it is more than 15 years old, but not 'bling-bling' because it is too new, too neo. The point is, are people using them or is the author just making them up? Wiki is concerned with the latter, not the former. Here is the source: Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google). Gate's Law produces significant hits on Google. It therefore passes the Google test for neologisms. Cyferx 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes of course you are right. Let's not lose sight of the fact taht I never said that just because it was a "new" it shouldn't be included - I said "unencyclopedic" neologism. It seems to be a bit of IT humour to me rather than the basis of a serious article.

• • If it was considered a serious "law" then it would have lot more Google hits after being in use for over 5 years [1] TigerShark 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless legitimate citations are added to the article; right now, it looks like an unencyclopedic neologism to me. (I don't consider most forum posts "legitimate citations", and I'm not alone in this, I don't think) CDC (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CDC. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly not a neologism - here's an article from 1997 on the law. I've heard of the law, and a Google search shows that plenty of other people have as well. — Asbestos | Talk 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, googling "Gates law" halves gave me 539 cites (a sort of semi-decent number) which, looking them over, looked respectable and on point (which is more important than the pure number). Dcarrano 00:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep And cleanup. Noteable. Crosslink with moores law? Ravedave 19:37, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.