Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horton'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. Singularity 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horton's law

Horton's law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Cannot find anything to suggest such a term exists, no sources, when do a google search [1] only reference is to a Horton's law of stream lengths not this article's topic Davewild 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources. Seems to be WP:OR Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, appears to be unsourceable. Fails WP:V. Jakew 11:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bigtime WP:MADEUP, and incoherent enough that it might well deserve an A1 speedy. Bullzeye ^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, appears to be a neologism. NawlinWiki 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete None of the "Horton's laws" I could find are quite what this article claims. There are actual scientific "laws" related to trees or drainage which are clearly unrelated. The closest I could find (and not very close) was from Huffington post.com 38 days ago, (but not retrievable at that site) reprinted at [2]. Scroll down to "David Horton: Whacko, Texas. Friday, July 13, 2007, 5:28:12 PM, where it says "the more the number of deniers decline the stronger will be the opposition. Call it Horton's Law, if you will." Specifically, it says as the number of deniers of global warming decreased, their vehemence increased. That is pretty trivial as a law, since the corollary would be that 'dedicated true believers would be the last to hold onto a belief". In the article, the "law" has been turned around a bit to involve terrorists. Delete it as a non-notable neologism failing WP:V or as WP:OR. Perhaps the article creator meant to name some other half-remembered "law." Edison 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Term is from this post [3] at the Huffington Post, but has not gained widespread use. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Fabrictramp 22:44, 22 August 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.