Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Recycle Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Recycle Family

The Recycle Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable short story, and I suspect it doesn't exist at all. No sources at all, and author refuses to provide any, even accusing me of engaging in "original research" by noting there are no Google or Yahoo hits, one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard at Wikipedia. Even if the book/story does exist, it isn't even close to being notable. But it sure looks like a hoax, especially with the author being as defensive and ranting as he is (see my talk page). Realkyhick 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this book was published in 2002 and is supposedly "well known for its notoriety", why has neither google nor yahoo ever heard of it, and why was the page only created 2 days ago? As well as that, no publisher I know would publish a book by an "unknown author" for fear of copyright violation, among other things, and its extremely rare for a single short story to be published as a book these days. And as for that "scanned cover", I'm prepared to bet I can knock up something identical looking in photoshop in about 10 minutes. Unless the author of the article can back this up, it should be gone asap. Tx17777 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Tx17777 and nom. Not a single google hit seems to be related to this "story". Also, it would take less than 10 minutes to throw together something virtually identical to that "cover".  :3 Lychosis T/C 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm going to go with per nom on this one; the article reads like a total hoax to me, just from the family's last name alone. Nate 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No Google hits or Google Books hits. Also cannot be found on any bookseller websites. Tbo 157talk 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Either a hoax or so ridiculously non-notable that it might as well be. Jakew 21:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ahh you guys are the one of the most paranoid control freaks I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with. There are plenty of things out there that I am sure neither google or any other search engine could ever pick up and just becuase something is extremely rare doesn't not mean it isn't true. As for the Anonymous Publishings look here Category:Works published anonymously]] for a full list. I bought this book off some lady in Grenada maybe you should look around there. By the way I'm a female. I2E4S6 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: So you want us to verify your story by rummaging around in some book stall in Grenada? Yeah, right. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable. Realkyhick 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment You seem to be working really hard to get this deleted. Do you know something about this book that we don't? Prehaps the publishing company you work for is in competition with The publishing company of The Recycle Family? I2E4S6 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • How could I be in competition with a company I don't even know? My reason for wanting this deleted is that I think you just made it up, and you're trying to turn the tables on your accusers because you have no case of your own. Frankly, I think you're full of the same stuff that "The Recycle Family" recycles, and you're wasting our time with this nonsensical hoax. Warning messages on your user talk page indicate you have a very cavalier attitude toward our policies here, and this article is just another of your little jokes. Realkyhick 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If yuo were you'd fake that wouldn't know who the competeion was. Well obviously I have to show disregard to the people who keep telling me not to upload those images becuase they just don't like them, the images are free and completely fair use, the only reason they are orphaned is because they want to upload there own. I2E4S6 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are aware of how wikipedia works, right? For all your insistence that the article should be kept, I've still yet to see you provide any scrap of evidence at all to prove this article's notability. I could ask a similar question of you as you ask Realkyhick - why are you so determined to see this article kept, but yet unwilling to give us any reasons to assert its significance? Do you perhaps work for the publishing company yourself? Oh, and why oh why does you being a female have any relevence at all to this debate? Its perfectly simple - if you can show me some real evidence of this books notability, I will happily change my opinion to 'keep'. But until you do, its a clear delete for failing WP:N. Tx17777 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC) PS If you'll provide us with the name of the publishing company, I'll be perfectly happy to ring them up myself and see if they ever published this book.
  • I'm going to attempt this one more time, but I fear this 'debate' is turning into that interview where I just keep asking the same question over and over again. Where is your EVIDENCE that this book is notable, or even exists?. No verification, no keep. Simple as. Tx17777 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of coverage from secondary sources, which is the determining factor of notability Corpx 04:19, 3 September 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.