Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jick'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 nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jick's law
Someone tagged this as speedy; regrettably too coherent. Prodded by y.t. as "nonnotable law, original research"; an ip removed the prod without providing a reason. I get 78 google hits (uh, make that two pages), most from Wikipedia mirrors. Based on a cursory search, no one seems to use this term for this, ahem, particular philosophical-ethical concept in real world, and comparison to Godwin's law is particularly ridiculously grandiose in this light. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC) style="color: rgb(255, 10, 0);"> Humphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUTWHAT I MESSED UP 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this appears to be a neologism.  I can't find any evidence this is used outside of Kingdom of Loathing...--Isotope23 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. OR. DarthVad e r 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites no sources, and, like others, I am unable to find any evidence that this concept has gained any traction in the world at large outside of its creator. I can find no secondary source material, discussing this law, that is from any source that is independent of the law's creator.  Original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO WP:NFT David My Talk  23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the above reasons. --Grouse 11:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as important principle in popular online game. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is that important, you should be able to provide sources published by people other than its creator xyrself to demonstrate that the concept has gained traction in the world at large, outside of the creator. Please cite sources.  I couldn't find any. Uncle G 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't noteworthy in any way. Aside from the fact that its not written in the style and tone of Eponymous laws, it isn't correct (or is only partly correct) - fear of serious consequences such as bodily harm or arrest is the primary reason people do not attack each other on the street; it does not explain or address anything at all, really, much less why people behave so badly online; and it does not actually add anything to understanding, even ironically, of...anything.  The above reasons. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not necessarily true that people mostly don't attack each other for fear of arrest or bodily harm. That doesn't mean, however, that this article should be kept. Mo-Al 23:09, 10 July 2006 (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.