Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.O.'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 was delete. Sango123 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T.O.'s Law

Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. Law was coined within this year, has no assertions of notability, no appearance in reliable sources. Contested prod. -- Merope 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Rob (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 13:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... per nom. Yet another neologism "law". The prod removal comparing this to Godwin's makes me want to invoke Isotope23's Law: "The day your law, based on Godwin's Law, is as referenced and pervasive as Godwin's Law... then it might deserve an article".--Isotope23 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. And I'm definitely disappointed, as I was hoping this would be about Terrell Owens. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, ha... as was I: "thou shalt ride the stationary bike and mug for the cameras whilst thou shirks practice due to a lame hamstring".--Isotope23 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as (likely vanity) neologism. ColourBurst 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The assertion has been made that Wikipedia is not for things made up on the internet one day. While I agree with this statement, it does not apply to this law, which has been stated in many forms in the past. It is also sad that just because 'established' Wikipedians don't recognize it, it should be deleted. Furthermore, having been coined within the year is hardly a reason to delete it. Is there a law that states "all laws coined within a year are not laws?" Maybe there should be. I'll call it theprez98's law. Finally, the forums on which the law was published are clearly a reliable source and should be considered so. Do not delete! theprez98 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment forums generally do not constitute a reliable source and usage on a series of forums still does not prove this is not a neologism or protologism. As Bethling stated below, Godwin's Law has been referenced in many different sources (Harper's Magazine for example). There is absolutely no evidence "T.O.'s Law" has received any external media attention.--Isotope23 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the time tested Isotope23's law ;). Godwin's law is widespread enough that its existence has been cited in several reliable sources. With out that same sort of coverage outside the web, it's just a neologism that lacks notability.- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:05, 8 September 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.