Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's First 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 merge to Brandon Sanderson. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson's First Law

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

No indication of notability per WP:V#Notability; all cited sources are of the self-published variety. Could be mentioned briefly in the article about the author instead. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanderson's Second Law. Sandstein 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson; law is not inherently notable but may be usable as a search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (might want to edit down/combine with his Second Law). A web search shows the phrase is widely used in fantasy fandom (blogs, forums, sites like TVTropes). It may be possible to find passing mentions in WP:RS sources (e.g. published book reviews in specialist journals) if you look hard enough, but it doesn't come close to notability requirements for a stand-alone article (notability would require detailed discussion not just mention and definition). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brandon Sanderson. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per rationales above. No references on Google Books, Google Scholar, Newsbank, Trove but plenty of references available in other sources. If the section became big enough to independently spinoff because of undue weight in a biography and emergence of media coverage or academic coverage, no bias against undoing and having it back as stand alone. --LauraHale (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as aboveMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2012 (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.