Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos washing machines

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvio [1]. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos washing machines

Weak delete I'm sure there's something of relevance or interest in there but where? Eddie.willers 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense/drivel. --Blackcap | talk 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • O.K., I just did some checking and found that this article was completely plagarised from here. "Chaos washing machines" gets a mere 67 results on Google (singular "Chaos washing machine" gets 63), the first two links being WP's. I had thought it was nonsense, and I was wrong. But it is pretty nn, and also copyvio. --Blackcap | talk 02:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is probably the original source: http://www.ama.edu.ph/research/amacc_e-journal_f/the_butterfly.htm . However I can't believe you would describe it as "non-notable". Kappa 02:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Really? Well, maybe I'm not thinking of something... but still, it seems like a largely ridiculous article to me, anyway, and that feeling is only exacerbated by finding so few Google hits and that it's plagiarised (suggesting that there isn't enough material out there to write an article about it). It's somewhat interesting, but not very notable (IMHO). --Blackcap | talk 16:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm surprised you would say it's non-notable, because it's both a big thing (a new product from a large company) and distinct from other things of its type (by having a "gimmick"). It's creative and has a large audience, and so it seems highly notable. Kappa 19:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this. But there probably is an article to be written about the relationship between science and advertising.Zeimusu | Talk page 01:14, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Keep, Vfd is not cleanup, maybe someone could provide a reason for deletion that has some basis in policy? Kappa 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep if copyvio is rewritten. Kappa
• Delete, or, at best, merge non-copyvio stuff into Chaos theory#Popular conceptions. --Calton | Talk 09:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Leaning towards a merge with Washing machine. I don't think these appliances are really notable in their own right, but they do represent an interesting development in Washing Machine Drivel (WMD). -- Visviva 09:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Visviva: Is your vote "merge," or are you still thinking about it? --Blackcap | talk 16:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that Goldstar is half of Lucky Goldstar, now known as LG. -- Visviva 09:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• RE-Merge back to Chaos Theory This article was a subsection in the Chaos Theory article, and was removed because it was marketing hooey. I think we should remerge it back to Chaos theory, under a new heading, like Chaos Theory in Popular Culture... or something....
• Delete if it was removed from Chaos theory for being a marketing hooey, it should simply get deleted. Groeck 17:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul Klenk
  • Comment Do you have a reason for your vote? --Blackcap | talk 20:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic. Elfguy 01:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Merge into Positioning (marketing) as an example thereof as that article currently has none and could use several. Caerwine 03:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure I understand why you think it ought to go into Positioning (marketing) of all the places it could go. Some people think that this constitutes a valid article in and of its own right, so I don't think that if it belongs anywhere it should be as an example in an article about marketing. You can't just have a few paragraphs on a washing machine in the midst of a business article, so that would completely eliminate anything you want to say about CWM apart from the marketing sector. It seems to me that it would be much more fit (if the vote is to keep or merge it) to either leave it as its own article with a link from chaos theory, or merge it with aforesaid chaos theory. --Blackcap | talk 16:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Response Because as far as I can tell, the whole CWM concept is primarily an attempt to create a new market segment within the market for washing machines to make use of the buzz that surrounded chaos theory in the early 1990s. If there's anything out there that indicates that this was more than just marketing buzz, then it might warrant a separate article, but if so, why ain't it in the article already. Caerwine 20:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
      • O.K. Thanks for clarifying that. --Blackcap | talk 20:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.