RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia:DeMyer's Laws

Conservapedia:DeMyer's Laws | Result: Kept[edit]

The 2nd has mainstream notability; the remainder serve only to poke fun at User:Conservative. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
FCP, I'm surprised at you of all people throwing out a lack-of-notability claim as a reason for deletion ;) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Mostly I dislike the naming of an "enemy" of RW's and then making articles to attack him. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with poking fun at Conservative. He's an buffoon supreme. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Originally, likely...but the laws apply pretty well. They are used in other sites but this specific page is certainly #1 on Google. Are we going to delete all the "named" (people or site) laws like Haig's, Whale.to, Haggard's, Danth's, and Rove's? How about the ones just name after people like Cohen's, Cleek's, Godwin, Pommer's, Shaker's, Skarka's, and Skitt's? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Not that funny, but I see no reason to delete it either. Don't mind merging it in Conservapedia:Conservative either. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty shameless attempt at burning RW's history by FCP. That newspapper clip is reason enough for me to keep it. Typhoon (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems funny enough to me that we could adapt this into some other article or whatnot. The newspaper cutout makes it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)