Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmes-Bocij 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holmes-Bocij Law

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google web or google groups hits. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete for the infamous 0 google hits. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and note that neither of the references [1] and [2] mention anything about the law. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Could we suspend judgment until the Bocij-Holmes Law becomes part of the archive? Google is not a conduit to scholarly sources, mainly just to junk from Usenet (e.g. see Godwin's Law). But Bocij-Holmes is in fact a relatively new law and has been published in scholarly journals to which Google Scholar does not own rights. It is being given some press and we should see Google availability within 10 days.

• Delete as per nom. If and when this is published by some recognizable source, the article can always be recreated on undeleted. ManoaChild 20:39, 14 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.