Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zawinski's law of software envelopment

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 merge to Jamie Zawinski. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zawinski's law of software envelopment[edit]

Zawinski's law of software envelopment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This one-liner doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep tons of google hits seem to indicate widespread acceptance of this humorous eponymous "law" of software development. It's not as notable as the Pareto Principle or Brook's Law but it does seem to have notability b the number of people citing it. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (again). Why are we resurrecting old merges from 2007? Speedily merge it again with Jamie Zawinski. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor noted that the content had been deleted from the target article and reverted the merge. If the content gets reverted from the target article, it means it shouldn't have been merged in the first place. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the content was (partially) moved to Wikiquote. Nevertheless, still no need for this stub and it can easily be merged. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge although the Jamie Zawinski article needs help too. Sure, more reliable and independent sources would be better, but take what you can get and resonable compromise (we are not the US congress?). W Nowicki (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2011 (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.