Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpson’s Corollary to Godwin’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 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpson’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law
Neologism, apparently coined this year on somebody's blog. The only references that can be found are the blog itself, and urbandictionary (which has standards that make Wikipedia look like a serious encyclopedia). If there's no evidence that this is in wide usage, it should be deleted. — sjorford++ 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism. I am almost sure I've seen this appear before, and that it was deleted, but can't find it right now. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Frankly I'm not even sure Godwin's law should be kept. Cedars 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, yet another neologism. Wikipedia is not a mirror of Urban Dictionary. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 10:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable neologism. It's not even a corollary. MLA 12:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism. I disagree with User:Cedars, Godwin's Law should be kept. J I P  | Talk 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, neologism/anti-counter-meme, and, unlike Godwin's Law, it lacks independent verification from WP:RS.-- danntm T C 01:54, 9 August 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.