Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin'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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW and lack of good reasons to delete. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law

blah... BlueLotas 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important concept that is well-known. The article is very well-sourced. I don't see any reason for deletion. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Will Beback. •Elomis• 08:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. On the article and the talk page there are articles in Time, the Washington Post, Wired, and Reason. I am mystified by the claims of BlueLotas. Grouse 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. --Salix alba (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback. Dekimasu 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grouse. Gdo01 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an informative and objectively written article. I came to the page looking for an answer and found one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratznium (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep This is one of my favorite Wiki articles and I quote Godwin's Law all the time. The AFD reason is just an Ad hominem anyway. -Ryanbomber 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Ransak 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable and useful concept. I just looked it up in WP and found what I was looking for. –Shoaler (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD is basically just toned-down vandalism; people attack this page constantly, in every possible way, because of personal issues with Godwin, or with what he has to say. <sigh> BlueLotas's actually on-topic point (that G.'s L. would never be quoted in "any serious media article") is already well-known by everyone involved in this article to be demonstrably false. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concur that the AfD is likely 'soft' vandalism. The article has been cited in the press as a source for two years running--who would want to delete such an article? JJL 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article, this deletion nomination is probably a WP:POINT. --SunStar Net 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close as keep under WP:SNOWBALL SirFozzie 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not vandalizing; I just can't see how this is important. Most of the references are spotty, and the only reliable ones were written by Godwin himself or a friend. It seems this term has become important because of this article, and for no other reason. Many of us don't use usenet, and when I have used Usenet, I've never encountered this term. BlueLotas 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grouse. Mzyxptlk 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known, well-sourced, and oft-used phrase. Certainly, an Internet user could very likely read it and want to look it up. I've used it in Talk pages here! JJL 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Time, Washington Post, etc. reference for this term is this article. What does that say? This is the best source they could find for the term. Hence without this article, it's likely that they would have omitted the word. Maybe they didn't even know of the term until they typed in "Nazi analogies" and came to the Wikipedia entry. BlueLotas 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.