 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 9. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
WP:NOT
editWhen prodded to clean up the article to comply with the rules on WP:NOT, the author of the article did cite the website of a print-medium newspaper (the Chicago Tribune), but he cited his own blog there, where he was the coiner of this law. This seems to be a flaw in the WP:NOT rules, which don't seem to account for the fact that a WP editor might themselves be published in an "official" medium that they can then cite..../blahedo (t) 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a non-notable neologism. Words dont deserve entries on wikipedia just because one blogger (however popular) used them. So if nonone objects I'll be merging shortly. Eluchil404 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It'll be deleted in about five days. Then Zorn can do another cute blog about how pathetic Wikipedians are because they're not interested in his pointless blatherings. Guess he's desperate for material, if this is the best he can come up with. Fan1967 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've merged the actual content of the law to Eric Zorn, in preparation for a merge-and-redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)