Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vierck'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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Vierck's law

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was created in 2005; prodded and deleted in 2007; restored by request January 12, 2015, but no improvements made. Was prodded again on January 16, but we cannot prod something twice. The article has always been, and remains, unverified and unreferenced. I could find no sourcing at all about this supposed law. MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this. Insofar as this means anything, it's done better at software decay. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if it were used, as Xcud asserts with no actual evidence, that's not enough. To be in Wikipedia it needs to have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. There's no sign of that. "It may become relevant again" is no argument at all for inclusion now. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can reliably show who Vierck is or was, and why anyone should take any notice of his law. In fact, Google shows very little notice being taken, so this could well be one of those things named after a work colleague as a windup. This would be supported by this being the author's only contrib other than a comment somewhere else. The requester for restoration also has made very few contribs. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha!! I've just read the request for undeletion again. "As a member of the Windows NT team I (Benjamin Vierck) mentioned the law myself in some subsequent interviews". A Benjamin Vierck was connected to Devfarm Software at whose AfD Xcud posted - his only area of editing other than List of eponymous laws (adding Vierck's Law). I have a distinct feeling that WP:COI (conflict of interest) comes in, as well as WP:OR (original research). Peridon (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sources, not even a Google mention other than WP itself. You'd think someone would have mentioned something about a law as far-reaching as this... In truth I wouldn't even think a speedy deletion under WP:G3 was out of order, except I cannot actually prove that someone is laughing his ass off right now.... -- BenTels (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure if piling on will make a difference at this point, but I can't find any sources to support that this theory is at all notable (or exists for that matter). Fuebaey (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs found. Its not really an article anyway just a definition more appropriate for Wiktionary. Also, I've got an MS in Computer Science and worked quite a bit doing research on the economics of software development and have never heard the term. And on top of all that, btw, it is clearly wrong! Lots of software in financial services, healthcare, military, etc. lasts much, much longer than 18 months. The only refs I could find to this was on a Microsoft blog from someone named (really) "Joe Software". My guess is this was an MS buzzword for a while but clearly not notable. Addendum: should have read all previous posts more carefully. Just saw the thing above by about the Windows NT team which confirms my suspicion as well. Probably a buzz word that people used within some team or teams at Microsoft, but never caught on in the IT world in general. Even if it did would be more appropriate for Wiktionary but clearly not notable --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2015 (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.