Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates' 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. ff m  22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gates&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is hopelessly unencyclopedic. None of the "proofs" are from WP:RL. Although humorous, (and I will probably quote it to a few friends this week), I simply don't see it as notable. My hunch is that someone is trying to use wiki to push this "law" into the mainstream. Bachrach44 (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you searched at all to see if Gates Law is already mainstream?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RL?? AndyJones (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete funny but not notable -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete *saves text for personal amusement* It's good, but it's not right. Unencylopedic, no sources yadayada. --Ged UK (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Alas, truth and notability are not equivalent. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although this might make a useful footnote to Wirth's law.  The "references" contradict themselves about the putative source of this aphorism, there's no original source to which one can refer; I agree with the nominator that this is non-notable and there are no reliable sources.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G10) — This article is intended to attack/disparage Bill Gates. MuZemike (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. If the article referred to a notable term, the article would not be intended to attack/disparage Bill Gates, but instead report a Verifiable account of other people's disdain for the output of Microsoft, using Gates as a figurehead.  It further claims that the origin of the term is from a memo he wrote, so it isn't necessarily meant as an attack at all. -Verdatum (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable Neologism. Get the term added to the Hacker's dictionary or some equivalent authority first, and then it can have an article.  It's certainly cute, and now that I know it, I can't wait to use it in conversation. But it doesn't need an article yet. -Verdatum (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Save You happen to be wrong: http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/gatess-law--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, almost vandalism. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Gates' Law (2nd nomination). Colonel Warden (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Save per Articles for deletion/Gates' Law Where the first vote had double the votes of the second vote. Anyway, can you really call this a vote, when there number of voters are so few?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a vote, it's supposed to be a debate. --Ged UK (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete " WikiScrubber (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Save It may be bootstrapping, but there is a entry in the jargon entry that conforms to this article, to wit: Gates's Law “The speed of software halves every 18 months.” This oft-cited law is an ironic comment on the tendency of software bloat to outpace the every-18-month doubling in hardware capacity per dollar predicted by Moore's Law. The reference is to Bill Gates; Microsoft is widely considered among the worst if not the worst of the perpetrators of bloat." http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/gatess-law and another entry over at http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Gatess-Law.html So, the question is whether one can generate and bootstrap a neologism into entry on Wiki by getting it entered it in other less strict places. Tough question given that we have no standards, but you have to measure success in some way and pointing to at least two outside word lists sounds like one unless you want to have a minimum Google hit number that confirms the usage. This would succeed on the first and likely fail on the second. However, I think two independent word lists that isn't simply user submitted and created is sufficient in this case. Cyferx (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By Google search results, Gates Law + Gates's Law is used more often than Wirth's Law, is it not? Do a search of both adding the phrase "Moore's Law"--Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oh beans! It's a joke, get it? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * SNAFU! It's a joke, get it?  We don't want people to be looking things up when they don't know what they mean!  We don't want culture to be chronicled!  History should not be recorded!  Take down Wikipedia now!  It's a joke, get it?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (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.