Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MFH'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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

MFH's Law

 * 1) Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. Delete. 2. ????  3. Profit!  (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.)  Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn slashdot joke Amren (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

MFH's Law

 * 1) Fine, kill it. Wikipedia is slowly becoming the irrelevant censor's choice anyway.

Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Godwin, you have created a monster of unfunny copycat laws and their articles on Wikipedia. Delete with prejudice. &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not in significant real use. Not well-known even within the Slashdot community. I've participated on Slashdot for several years now and never seen any reference to it whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete strong agreement with Dpbsmith. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Slashdot. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly nn - unlike, for example Cole's Law :-) Dlyons493 07:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Amusing in context (I admit that I smiled when I first read it) but not even really notable enough to merge with Slashdot. -- Plutor 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. Delete. 2. ????  3. Profit!  (That is, delete in full agreement with Dpbsmith.)  Barno 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn slashdot joke Amren (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, waste of time. Shauri 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete useless. *drew 07:40, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.