Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelnaw's Law

Gelnaw's Law gets few if any hits (wiki mirrors apart) on Google. Suspect either invention or non-notability. Ironic, huh? --Tagishsimon
 * Delete: Probably no hoax, probably well known in a specialized field. However, insufficient spread and usage for a general encyclopedia. Geogre 13:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep [was:] Don't Delete: I've heard it several times before, but I believe it's named incorrectly. I'd suggest, if anyone has the time, doing a little research to find the origin. GregDunn 20:50, 29 Aug 2004 (GMT -6)
 * Vote de-confused by me;2nd edit in his month-long history. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Searching on the text of the "law" gets only Wikipedia, mirrors, and one blog.  Non-verifiable.  SWAdair | Talk  03:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete : I've heard it used several times and it think that it's named correctly, though spelling may be questiable. 16:33, 1 Sep 2004
 * Struck thru bcz anon. Their two edits on this vote are, BTW, their only ones. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
 * Jerzy, editing other people's votes is pretty questionable. We all know that anonymous votes don't count, so all you need to do is make a note like "no other edits" -- no need to pass judgement. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. The other two laws cited have already sucked all the air, and humor, out of this field. Non-notable. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough people know about it to justify it's inclusion. ··gracefool |&#9786; 09:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not clear why this is notable. Andris 19:55, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)