Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steel'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. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel's law
Original research, trivia, unencyclopaedic and verifiability. The only two relevant Google hits are Wikipedia, and the rest are law firms. "Steel's law" Exposer doesn't get any Google hits at all. The 'critic' doesn't have an article, so can't be that notable. I've seen many versions of this in magazines such as Empire and Maxim, or e-mail forwards, so Wikipedia attributing it to one person is misleading. The word "law" in the name suggests greater authority than this light entertainment deserves; it's not encyclopaedic. It doesn't belong in the criticism cats (not in the academic understanding of film criticism anyway -- as opposed to simply the journalistic one), and certainly not 'critical theory'. Also, not wishing to bite the newbies, creating this was the author's first edit: there have been allegations on the talk page of vanity. Which I think are legitimate. The JPS talk to me  09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in a movie theatre one day. --Dhartung | Talk 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom AdamSmithee 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Save - I removed the critical theory category and put in just film theory; that seemed to be a large part of the problem. I don't know how many times I must repeat myself, though, this is not original resource. If you were to pick up a copy of The Exposer the August 30 issue, you'd find an article on this. If you think that attributing this to one person is wrong, or calling it a "law" is wrong, then make the changes yourself rather than just taking the easy way out by deleting the article. I find this to be very similar to Godwin's Law, which was a mindset shared by many internet users but formulated into a pseudolaw by one person. I doubt it had much press when it was created in 1992, so if you just wait, Steel's law will also become a little more well-known.Jiberole 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not film theory. It is light entertainment. Wikipedia does not include things which might become famous in the future. We include things which already are. It vey much seems that this article only exists to enhance the somewhat limited notability of whoever Steel is. I suspect he's a high school student in the San Franscisco area...? Oh, and I have made the changes needed: the article needs to be deleted, so I've nominated. As for Goodwin's Law, the chances are Goodwin's name was already attached to it by the time it was made a Wikipedia article. The magazine in which you say it will apparantly take of does not even seem to have a Wikipedia article. So you are asking us to include a non-notable person attempting to link their name to a piece of light entertainment, citing a non-notable magazine? And no-one else on the internet is talking about it. Repeat yourself as many times as you want: when Steel is indelibly associated with this and there are dozens of independent sources to verify it, then he can have his article. For the moment, this is going to the great encyclopedia in the sky.  The JPS talk to me  19:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're just so friendly to newcomers, aren't you? I don't know how a guy like you became admin...take a note from Esperanza and try being nice for once. Here's a link for you: Don't bite the newcomers Jiberole 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I havn't been incivil, but I'm unprepared to let this article stay just to keep someone happy. Please assume good faith, and avoid making personal comments. The JPS talk to me  19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the one who accused me of vanity multiple times. That's a pretty personal comment, and I take offense to it. Jiberole 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced vanity-bait. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In working with this new editor, I also have tried to remain very conscious of WP:BITE, but I have thus far been unable to locate credible, third-party sources for this article.  Unfortunately, does not meet the standards of WP:Verifiability.  -- Satori Son 02:47, 4 October 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.