Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goth Transformation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted article transformation. Coredesat 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goth Transformation

Goth Transformation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This term appears to be a neologism with no evidence of notability or currency; the article is rife with what appears to be original research. (Full disclosure: this article was tagged for speedy deletion (G1, patent nonsense), but I felt there were no speedy categories that are valid for this particular article, so I untagged it. That doesn't mean I think it's suitable for Wikipedia, however.) Powers ^T 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I did a major cleanup to the article to bring it closer to WP Style, and in conclusion, yeah...this does come pretty close to patent nonsense. It is certainly a WP:NEO. I shouldn't even need to mention WP:AR WP:OR WP:N WP:V. -Verdatum (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Changed my mind. I consider this "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.", IOW, patent nonsense. -Verdatum (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I must be unreasonable then. It makes perfect sense to me. Powers ^T 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. What the heck! Jack?! 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just barely escapes being a G1 ... but gahhhh, this is horribly written. Not only that, but no reliable sources whatsoever. Blueboy96 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say the rewrite made the article better than it was ... but still, only 121 Yahoo hits and 234 Google hits. Not enough for an article yet. Blueboy96 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, definitely. Apart from having no sources, I agree it's badly written and not the kind of article for Wikipedia. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt It like Ancient Carthage What in tarnation is this article?! It skirts the border of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Zidel333 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Uhm. Yeah, cool. Delete - unsourced original research. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.