Talk:law of unintended consequences

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This page is problematic. First, it is not a word, but rather a longish phrase. Second, there are no sources for the purported definition. Third, there is almost no content on the page. — This unsigned comment was added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) at 08:43, 9 January 2013‎.

Not to defend this entry, but to clarify our standards:

1. We have entries for many noun and other phrases, some rather longish;
2. We don't require, though we value, sources; and
3. We have many entries with such little context, often because we are a work in progress, but also because dictionary entries are not encyclopedia articles.

IOW, though I agree that "[t]his page is problematic", none of your reasons would warrant deletion. It is certainly in clear widespread use, so citations supporting the definition could easily be found. The principal reason to delete this would be a finding that its meaning-in-use was obvious from its component parts. Ie, it referred to a (deprecated template usage) law + (deprecated template usage) of + (deprecated template usage) consequences that were (deprecated template usage) unintended. I think all aspects of the meaning are expressed or implied by definitions of the terms.

There are those here whose stated beliefs in how our rules work would have it that the existence of several definitions of law and other terms (of] !!!!) makes it too hard for someone who had not heard the phrase before (ie, someone just learning English) to suss out the meaning. But I doubt that the entry will get many using such defense for this particular entry because it would probably demonstrate the bankruptcy of their reasoning. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep, "the law of X" doesn't inherently mean "there is always X". Siuenti (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess we should have some citations that show that this is what it means. I suppose any attestable misnomer, false proposition, metaphor, or ellipsis should be included. For starts, how about the check is in the mail, book of love, face of death, and get to first base and three-legged stool (both figurative). DCDuring TALK 19:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of these should be in here. For example, the check is in the mail basically indicates a false assurance, which can not be discerned from any of the component parts. By contrast, get to first base is merely get to first base (with "get to" being exchangeable with "reach" or "make it to"). bd2412 T 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Kept for lack of consensus to delete. bd2412 T 23:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)