Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair'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. -- Longhair\talk 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Blair's Law
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a phrase coined by the Australian blogger Tim Blair to describe "the phenonemon of far right and far left groups allying with extremist Islamists." I think this should be deleted because it's already covered at Tim Blair's article and it's probably not notable enough for it's own article--certainly there aren't any reliable third-party third-party sources to establish notability right now. As the article itself points out, it's also similar to Horseshoe Theory, which was deleted through AfD. P4k 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is substantial support for this article amomng the blogging community. As Blair himself points out, it has spread quite substantially in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely non-notable. Sources are just a bunch of blog posts. Content about this is already at Tim Blair Recurring dreams 06:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Recurring dreams 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for things posted on a blog one day that other bloggers find witty. This isn't even a law, it's barely an observation, and the article largely exists to link to those other bloggers chuckling. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources are insufficient (a small collection of one-off mentions on blogs, and the Urban Dictionary), and the saying is already mentioned in the parent article Tim Blair. No need for a separate article for an observation as relatively unknown as this. Euryalus 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT, neologism. Keb25 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ceoil 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT. --Duncan 12:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete then do a blog about how unfair it was that it was deleted. Mandsford 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect then post about how unfair it is ;-) Lundse 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Blair's Law does not seem to have much currency so not worth a redirect to Tim Blair. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation should reliable sources (i.e mainstream media coverage, independent of the "law"'s proponent) be found in the future. Whether or not the "law" has any bearing in fact or otherwise is irrelevant and Mr. Blair is hardly an independent source for his own "law". -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Aldux 17:11, 10 September 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.