Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's Law (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep (see discussion, previous nom). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. Evergreens78 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — User:Evergreens78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This term has gotten enough mileage and repetition that people will likely want to have a place to look it up. I don't see why wikipedia should get rid of it. 130.179.253.138 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable meme. --Eastmain 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Will speedy close unless someone provides a more in-depth rationale. Please take more than ten seconds to fill out an AfD nom, put some thought into it, and try a little harder to convince the community that the previous (and rather strong) consensus to keep the article should be overturned. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The references in the article show multiple, reliable, independent coverage -- the very definition of notable in Wikipedia. Noroton 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, all this "meme" stuff is questionable and the article is a little heavy on the OR, but it does cite several reliable print sources that satisfy WP:N. Krimpet 02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Name one reliable print source. Epbr123 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Epbr123, where do you get the idea that "Wired"[1] magazine and "Reason"[2] magazine are not reliable print sources? That's two, that's multiple, and that's enough. Noroton 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wired article was writen by Godwin himself so is not independant. The Reason article states that Mike Godwin is now a Reason contributing editor, so this is not independant either. Epbr123 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Or would you prefer The Washington Post? "There is a dictum in Internet culture called Godwin's Law (after Mike Godwin, a lawyer who coined the maxim), ..."[3]Noroton 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's only one reliable, independent piece of coverage. One more needed to make it multiple coverage. Epbr123 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. No evidence that the term has ever had reliable, independent coverage. Most of the references in the article are written by Godwin himself and the rest are just blogs. Epbr123 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, widely used saying--the repeated AfD requests directed against it are in effect evidence of its notability. JJL 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, speedy keep but JJL, that has to be the worst AfD/notability reasoning I've seen to date. Have you actually read WP:N? Do you really think the genuine trash articles that reappear in just-different-enough form to escape WP:SD are suddenly "notable" when they get (rightly) AfDed again? edit conflict - this is going in after the close. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This is very notable. --Alecmconroy 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a possible reference in The Washington Post, that looks pretty notable and reliable to me. --Canley 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. StaticElectric 03:20, 16 March 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.