This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 05:11, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Adam's rule

This looks like a neologism, and probably vanity too - created by User:Adamgoldberg. Further, it's a non-memorable statement of a pretty basic, non-unique idea. Cdc 22:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just a re-stating of the basic premise of laissez-faire capitalism, applied specifically to television receiver equipment. Not notable. Delete. Ливай | ☺ 00:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as awkward deep thoughts and bad economics. Quality in the marketplace is determined by the conjunction of price and an operating standard that meets actual demand (the resulting quality may be dreadful or superlative)... moreover, certain mandated quality standards are economically and otherwise justified on the basis of public safety... less than nothing to see here. Worse, the user has named the article after himself. Vanity. Wyss 03:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable restatement of a well-known concept. And if it wasn't, it'd be original research and deletable. --fvw
- 17:09, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity neologism. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.