Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowalski'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 of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kowalski's Law

I had tagged it as a speedy, but it's close enough now to be better AFDed. Notability is highly sketchy, doubtless vanity. Deltabeignet 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• A university student has made up a law and some other university students have repeated it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 04:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The citations were added after I wrote the above. However, as Durova points out below, they are highly suspect. Uncle G 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: In this context, a law is defined as "a generalization based on consistent experience or results". A university student quantified a pre-existing phenomenon with its own epidemiology. The very essence of a "law" within the scientific community is its element of repeatability.Anotherzerohero 06:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Negligible Google hits refer mostly to an attorney named Kowalski. Durova 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This terminology has been used in publications and public discourse. Thus, it does not fall under the category of original research. Beyond that, Google references mostly non-academic sources, and its relevance is suspect.146.7.209.64 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Except for a couple of NN blogs, the only Google hits are incidental occurrences. One of the claimed publications occurs two years before claimed invention of the term and another appears to be an unpublished interview, which renders the third (trivial if verified) citation suspect. Durova 06:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The wording of the introduction quietly changed from "created" to "popularized" since I posted the above criticism. Durova 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.TheRingess 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G and Durova. I suspect that the insertion of this article into Wikipedia is an attempt to illustrate the "law" itself. --Metropolitan90 08:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Though not the intent of the editor of this article, how could this assertion be a negative thing? Such a claim would be a perpetuation of the recognition of and need for the law.Anotherzerohero 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Blackcats 09:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's an idea that, while intriguing, certainly doesn't deserve to be known as "Kowalski's Law" because nobody is going to go looking for named like that. Maybe do something like The 3 Laws of Hilarity:
  1. A person may not place comedic value above possible loss of life or, through inaction, allow comedic value to be placed above possible loss of life.
  2. A person must strive to maximize comedic value in all situations except where such action would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A person must strive to minimize negative repercussions as long as such action does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

--Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment What is your basis for the idea that one would look for the idea named as something else? (You found this entry). Secondly, the concept does not necessarily have to do with the loss of life. What you're proposing is an original idea undocumented in the real world.
  • I only found this through the AfD page, and my 3 Laws of Hilarity was a joke. Go read up on Three Laws of Robotics to see why I included the human life part. Hopefully someone else got it. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Only if reliable sources can be cited. We don't just make stuff up. Uncle G 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Eusebeus 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "Kowalski's Law" is a real phrase with a definite presence within the vernacular of a geographical area. As the editor, I was simply trying to illuminate something that already has the capacity to reflect. I know I'm new, and I'm trying really hard to meet all of your "standards" here!Anotherzerohero 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does it have a verifiably encyclopedic presence? Even if all your assertions are true this probably qualifies for deletion as slang. The Internet has sites devoted to recording such ephemera. Wikipedia has other missions. Durova 16:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - You might want to hit up Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is not the kind of place for this. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete while not exactly original research, this does seem to be original work with very limited external recognition. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic personal trivia. Enochlau 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only a handful of Google hits. Come back in a year or two when it's famous. chocolateboy 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. --Pierremenard.
• Delete. Obscure, regional, non-notable. --lotusland.
• Delete. Non-notable.Madman 06:32, 19 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.