Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin'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 delete. --Coredesat 06:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin's Law

Martin's Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This saying has been around for 3 months according to the article, nowhere near long enough to have gained notoriety. I doubt whether there are any reliable secondary sources to prove notability. The whole article reads like an essay. Was originally tagged as speedy delete, which was rejected and changed to prod. This tag was removed without comment, hence my nomination. Kevin 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No references listed, none are likely to exist: this is completely unverifiable. Note also that the article was created on the 8th of March, 6 days after it was first stated. Wikipedia is not for things made up at school while standing around the water cooler one day. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Peter Principle or Murphy's Law. No offense to Shawn Martin or to the author of this article, but the idea of a manager out of touch with the rest of the organization is not anything new, and was observed well before March 2007. Lawrence Peter wrote a bestselling book about persons who rise to the level of their own incompetence in The Peter Principle, and touched on this; Scott Adams writes about this on a regular basis in Dilbert. In addition, people who like to put their names on some observation of human behavior will more likely be located as part of an article about such "laws". As proof, read my article Mandsford's Law: if you must name a new idea after yourself, it is probably not a new idea. Mandsford 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to merge. This whole article is unverifiable. Uncle G 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete made up at work one day. JJL 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources and, searching, I can find no sources. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per WP:NFT.--Edtropolis 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh, how true it is, but even Murphy's Law, the Dilbert Principle, or the Peter Principle were not notable when first stated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 21 June 2007 (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.