Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grovers Law

Update: I count 8 votes to delete, 1 ordinary user to merge, and 1 sock puppet to merge. I'll now delete the article. -- This discussion is now closed, thanks for not editing this page. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:05, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Google hits, either on web or newsgroups. Claims to be an Internet term, if it actually were it would garner a few hits. - Hephaestos|§ 13:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have been a neologism that nobody else picked up on. Nothing from Google either on the web, or in newsgroups. Teoma finds one unconnected website. Average Earthman 14:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important content with sock puppet, then delete. MathyGuy23 17:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no important content. I am compelled to the view that User:MathyGuy23 is a sockpuppet of (IASO) User:Empyrix who created Grover's Law IASO User:P23 IASO User:68.117.71.101 IASO User:MargarineFly IASO User:38 IASO Mu_Gamma IASO ... wait for it ... User:Mike Church. Yes, its really just the return of the son of the Ambition troll phenomenon. (Note that according to Grover's Law, I lost the argument several lines back. :) --Tagishsimon
Delete. 38 19:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "MathyGuy" is a sock puppet or not, I kind of like his suggestion. Specifically, split the bit on Internet sock puppets into a separate article, and merge some of the "Grover's Law" content into it (minus that term, which doesn't seem to be in common use). Then delete "Grover's Law". - Gwalla 21:05, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Just delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:12, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. I don't know enough about its level of importance in Internet culture to make an informed decision. "Grover's Law" is in reference to a claim by a somewhat crazy Internet user (reportedly on antipsychotics) back in 2002 that some large proportion of forum posts originated from the Sesame Street persona Grover (the blue guy). The specific term "Grover's Law" does not seem to be in very common use-- it might pop up once a month or so. By the way: Tagish, you amuse me. Just curious: do you believe in the Masonic conspiracy theories as well? Mu Gamma 04:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I just have these crazy notions about user identities appended to Wikipedia in May, which seem to mainly interested in these Churchian topics, and which have other distinct similarities. Could I gently suggest that a search on Google is always a good barometer of "importance in internet culture", and that there might - just might - be a connection between someone prepared to argue for the term ("it might pop up once a month") in the face of what seems to be categorical evidence to the contrary (zero hits on google); and that such a person might be just a tiny wee bit disingenuous? Would you care to say more on this whole Seseme street / antipsychotic drugs bit? I worry that there might be some hint of autobiography peeping through such a comment, in the context of a user who finds it necessary to maintan multiple wiki identities whch, from time to time, converse amongst themselves. --Tagishsimon
Delete: someone's personal neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still working on Texture's Law - Tεx τ urε 02:48, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]