Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ackerman'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. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerman's Law

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

Neologism created by author. Since the original source is now defunct it is impossible to verify whether Ackerman ever said this; it could be wrongly attributed to him for political purposes. The sources for the quote are known for political bias. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the "Neolgism" argument. The quote provided in the Wiki page has been substantiated by a number of respected and legitimate sources, as well as on other Wiki pages. I'm not sure what more would be needed to prove the quote is accurate. ImNotBlue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. None of the sources cited refer to the quote as being called "Ackerman's Law." Until that happens, we must assume that this name is a neologism invented by the article's creator, which would violate our policy on original research, of which WP:NEO is merely one particular case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search comes up with two results for 'Ackerman's Law'. One is about steering mechanisms ('Ackerman's Law of Steering'). One about social stability with a changing population (as defined by architect, Frederick Lee Ackerman, 1878-1950). I couldn't find any evidence of the phrase being routinely used in the context suggested in this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (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.