Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendy'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. - Mailer Diablo 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hendy's Law

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a term that has not reached any degree of notability, with only 6 Ghits, despite the article's claim of broad industry acceptance. Moreover, the term, Hendy's Law, is merely the application of a broader term, Moore's Law to a specific product. Finally, the article seems to be a form of Blatant advertising as the article's primary author, Barry.hendy has attached his own name to the 'law.' TheMindsEye 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the fact that a handful of people "in the industry" use or have used this term (maybe) does not make it notable.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Wehwalt 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty interesting, but not encyclopedic. I count just 3 non-Wikipedia Google hits for the term, and those aren't exactly reliable sources either.  I should note that I myself am a serious digital photographer and follow the industry closely, and despite reading countless articles and discussions on the general topic, have never heard this specific term used anywhere. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another "law" neologism. If I had a dollar for every Moore's Law and Godwin's Law rip-off that shows up as an article here...  I'd have several dollars now.--Isotope23 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I infer Isotope23's Law: Every Moore's Law and Godwin's Law rip-off is worth 1 dollar. &#9786; Uncle G 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added some additional references and [| comment] but given the main references are from conferences (PMA Australia) and the comments above I guess I have to accept the deletion proposal! Barry.hendy 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons stated above. Incidentally, I've moved from 35mm to so-called 6x6 to so-called 6x9; I wonder if this progression is related. -- Hoary 10:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest moving the graph to Digital cameras where there is a note already. --Theosch 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Hendy also writes: "...This phenomenon was first presented by Barry Hendy of Kodak Australia at the PMA Australian conference in 1998 and has been updated frequently since then.[2] While this concept is only an incarnation of Moore's Law it is a very specific example for the photo industry and is referred to as "Hendy's Law" within the industry." However the internet references he gives don't say anything. It would be nice to have a valid reference and list "Hendy's law" as a variation of Moore's law in Moore's law. I would therefore also be for delete if the graph can be placed in either Digital cameras or Moore's law or both, and the term Hendy's law described in either if a valid reference is found. --Theosch 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Graph is now in Digital cameras Barry.hendy 03:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you re above. I've shortened the text slightly and thumbnailed the image with a caption. I am now for deleting Hendy's law. I'm not sure if this was a proper procedure, please point out if not. --Theosch 08:13, 18 January 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.