Deletion of Horton's law

Comment: None of the "Horton's laws" I could find are quite what this article claims. There are actual scientific "laws" related to trees or drainage which are clearly unrelated. The closest I could find (and not very close) was from Huffington post.com 38 days ago, (but not retrievable at that site) reprinted at http://www.scdfa.org/taxonomy/term/4393/0/feed. Scroll down to "David Horton: Whacko, Texas. Friday, July 13, 2007, 5:28:12 PM, where it says "the more the number of deniers decline the stronger will be the opposition. Call it Horton's Law, if you will."  Specifically, it says as the number of deniers of global warming decreased, their vehemence increased. That is pretty trivial as a law, since the corollary would be that 'dedicated true believers would be the last to hold onto a belief". In the article, the "law" has been turned around a bit to involve terrorists. Delete it as a non-notable neologism failing  or as . Perhaps the article creator meant to name some other half-remembered "law
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: unsourced, appears to be unsourceable. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Term is from this post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-horton/whacko-texas_b_56171.html at the Huffington Post, but has not gained widespread use. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: bigtime , and incoherent enough that it might well deserve an A1 speedy. Bullzeye
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: No sources. Seems to be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: no sources, appears to be a |neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)