Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubman'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. Sr13 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tubman's law

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Describes a "law" much along the lines of Godwin's Law, but appears to be largely original research and POV-pushing with nothing reliable to back it up. Has not reached anything like the level of recognition of Godwin's Law (compare 85 GHits for "Tubman's Law" with 269,000 for "Godwin's Law"). ~Matticus TC 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While I'm sure it's entirely possible that this is a well known term/phrase to many people, this article as it exists is a clear delete. 1) No assertion of notability, 2) No citation of any kind, 3) Awash in nearly the definition of original research (specifically that the article states which applications of the "law" are fallacious or not).  That third is something that of course could be cleaned up but is currently intrinsic to the entire article (for that matter if for some reason this article were kept, it would need a complete rewrite anyway if only to make it clear what exact the law is).  There is no evidence in this article that Tubman's Law exists, no assertion or evidence that it is prevalent in any society and no given reason why there should be a wikipedia article on it.  If this can be strongly improved before the end of this AfD debate I'd be happy to change my opinion, but as it looks today I find that unlikely. -Markeer 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Quite aside from the above, a turgid mess that has the feel of having been made up in school one day.  RGTraynor  13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Screams original research. No sources, basically what was said above. Turlo Lomon 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not attributed and likely not attributable. Appears to be verging on an attack page against certain non-conservative beliefs; incredible (and I'm guessing to many highly offensive) POV that, if removed, would leave the article roughly ten words long. --70.73.252.78 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, that was me. -- Charlene 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Looks like stream of consciousness, badly written, no sources... scope_creep 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Made up, unsourced, nonsense. It could be worse - Tubgirl's law anyone? - Tiswas (t) 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. As per CSD:G1 and A7. Has no sources.--Edtropolis 16:57, 14 June 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.