Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugol's law

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 23:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ugol's law
Non-notable. Delete or merge with alt.sex.bondage. Neutralitytalk 03:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a repeat VfD. Anyone have a link to the old discussion?  I remember how I voted before.  Unsurprisingly, I'm sure, I voted delete, and I do so again.  It is simply a saying.  Therefore, at best it would go to Wikiquote, not Wikipedia.  Geogre 04:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: How has this existed for over 2 years? DCEdwards1966 04:23, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as extremely non-notable, most likely author vanity as well. DreamGuy 04:35, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stet. It's not a "mere" saying; it's more like to a theorem, which has a name but is an established fact.  It's not quite a fact, perhaps (though I'd argue that it is), but at worst it's Jargon (in the CS Jargon File (jargon.net) sense): it's the standard name within the relevant community.  Call me the PC Police, but it seems to me that deleting this entry would tend to marginalize that community, and I don't see a pressing need for Wikipedia to be in that business.  Excuse my anonymity.  12/30/04
 * Delete. A quip from alt.sex.bondage, however often quoted there, and even if elevated to being a named "law", isn't an encyclopedia topic, unless it reaches the wider culture.   Removing the article doesn't marginalize that "community";  the community is already marginal.   There are hundreds of these "laws". A few of them, such as Murphy's Law, are notable.  And the rest aren't.  Wikipedia is not the alt.sex.bondage FAQ.  --BM 13:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, certainly non-notable, vanity on behalf of the users of alt.sex.bondage. Rje 15:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * [The wikiquette page indicates that it's not inappropriate to elaborate on disagreements; if this isn't the right page for it, excuse my ignorance and redirect me.] [Full disclosure: I am not a member of ASB and had never heard of Ugol's Law until yesterday.] What about Cayley's Theorem?  It's named for somebody, and it's relevant only to a tiny subset of the population.  It's encyclopedia-worthy because it's true.  The principle named Ugol's Law is true and important; ask any clinical psychologist.  And it matters to a lot more people than Cayley's Theorem; again, ask any clinical psychologist.  It wasn't named by Ugol, any more than Cayley's Theorem was named by Cayley; it needed a name and therefore it was named after the person who first stated it.  (Cayley certainly didn't state his theorem in the form it has now; the language it's in now hadn't been invented yet.)  There are two differences between Ugol's Law and Cayley's Theorem.  One is that Cayley's Theorem can be proved.  But rigorous mathematical proof is by no means the only valid standard of knowledge; even physics can't usually attain it, let alone biology, let alone psychology.  So this difference doesn't matter.  The other difference is that, indeed, descriptively, ASB is marginal and mathematics isn't.  But (1) should that be the case normatively? (2) is the purpose of Wikipedia to marginalize the (genuine) knowledge of marginal groups?  I know I'm being quixotic about this; I made it my academic specialty because it hurts me when people are bigots without even realizing it.  This is an eminently rationalistic form of bigotry, but I don't think my calling it that is any less honest than "the community is already marginal" (which offended me when I first read it, before I decided to interpret it descriptively).  I hope you can see this from a perspective other than your own.
 * This and the previous anon are User:141.213.133.30, who has no other contributions than these. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long-standing, well-known. Doesn't look like vanity to me. Zetawoof 21:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a law, and, unlike Murphy's "law", not notable. Josh Cherry 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep or, at worst, merge with alt.sex.bondage. While it is obscure, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide access to information about subjects that the reader in unfamiliar with. While this is definately an area of marginal interst to most, it is long standing and established usage within its area. --68.104.17.212 05:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.