Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutber's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Good work, people. DS 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutber's law

(Delete - per above

  • keep -- a widely known concept, cited in Hansard, the Guardian etc. Article is referenced. A better google search is: [1] --mervyn 13:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as currently non-notable. Take heart, though - I suspect even Murphy was non-notable at one time. --Dennisthe2 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep very well known amongst people who know what they're talking about. Dave 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on lack of widespread use, I guess most don't know what we're talking about. May catch on like Murphy and Parkinson. Hasn't yet. Fan-1967 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely small number of Google hits suggest that this isn't very widespread. I guess it's hard to call this a neologism after so many years. Didnt-catch-on-ogism? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For a coined term to be included, references the term itself are needed. Not simply references to the use of the term. If this can be demonstrated to meet WP:NEO I may change my vote. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per danntm's citations to multiple sources discussing the meaning of the term, seems to meet WP:NEO. Those should go into the article if they have not already. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- Restating my keep comments made before the relist: this is a serious article, with ref. There is a clear citation in Hansard with Sir Geoffrey Howe crediting the phrase to Patrick Hutber: "I am glad that my hon. Friend still remembers with affection the inventor of Hutber's law, the late Patrick Hutber." --mervyn 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • While that confirms that it exists and that atleast one person reffered to it's inventor, that is a long way from demonstrating notability, I don't think anyone is denying that the law exists. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Surely that exactly demonstrates notability -- a phrase used in Parliament by a cabinet minister is just what Wikipedia should be explaining and commenting on. --mervyn 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that all? Perhaps WP:NEO is pertitnent here, it says To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. I don't think a cabinet minister simply making reference to an expression satisfies this guideline, but then it is a guideline and you are welcome to think differently. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per HighInBC. Henning Makholm 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Neutral in light of new citations. Still unclear to me whether the law is supposed to mean that decisionmakers will consciously use "improvement" as an euphemism for for reductions, or that honestly intended improvements will inevitably end up as deteroriation for unforeseen reasons, or both ... Henning Makholm 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I just ran a LEXIS search, and it turned up 28 news sources using "Hutber's law," most of which use refer to the specific law. For example:
    • "Not a Credit to the Banks," Daily Mail, 12 April 1992, p. 6: referring to a problem with an upgrade to ATMs "What a fine example of the operation of Hutber's law - that improvements invariably make things worse."
    • "Leading Article: Figuring it Out," The Guardian, 15 April 1994, p. 21: "'another case of Hutber's law, that 'progress brings deterioration'".

Hopefully, I can bring forth a few more later, but I have to go right now.-- danntm T C 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Appendix: Here are a few more citations to consider:
    • The Scotsman, 13 Sept. 1994: "One of the immutable laws of business, according to the late Patrick Hutber, one of the best regarded financial journalists, was that improvement meant deterioration."
    • Tim Satchell, "Patience is the hardest virtue: Tim Satchell explains why it took two years to secure the money he was owed," Daily Telegrah, 20 January 2001, p. 06: "[The] Woolf [reforms to the legal system] went the way of Hutber's Law, that great truism revealed by the City commentator Patrick Hutber who said, 'improvement means deterioration'"
    • "Pay any price to beat poverty," New Statesman, 26 November 2001, "Hutber's law, coined by a now deceased journalist, states: 'Improvement means deterioration.'"

I thus believe, Hitber's Law is well used in British news media, and satisfies WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:CITE.-- danntm T C 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Rather weak keep; while hardly a term on the tip of everyone's tongue, danntm's citations do establish a certain amount of currency over a significant period of time. — Haeleth Talk 23:39, 19 November 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.