Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chow-Li 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 per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chow-Li law

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable adage. The references have nothing to do with the subject and a search for the subject or its inventors reveals no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism has no coverage I can see in the links provided, and it's just a little bit coatrack flavored besides. It more or less rings as something made up in school one day, if only by the creators, but that would be more or less in name only - this is pretty much a variant on an old adage that says the same thing about literally anything: there is always somebody who is better at what you do than you are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage of itself within reliable sources. Google search for news even was totally empty except for the Wikipedia page. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Variants do appear online, but no coverage in reliable sources makes this a minor internet meme, not an encyclopedic subject. The cited statements in the article are WP:SYNTH. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Money, in its physical sense, has no real value. It's worth is derived from our common understanding that is to be valued. It is true that there are few references to the Chow-Li law online. However, by existing, this article adds to its worth. It allows individuals to absorb the law into their lexicon and make it common place. --Montecarol 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is a mix of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and "putting it on Wikipedia will make it notable" (which reeks of circular reasoning). Please read WP:N and WP:NOTNEO. Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the internet-famous (?) neologism was notable, that article would be a WP:COATRACK for the research that produced it (which is on its own unnotable). Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (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.