Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory Of New Sinology

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. Given the multiple postings, I have salted as well using cascading protection.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory Of New Sinology

Theory Of New Sinology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has been speedily deleted several times (by me). Text dump of some essay (presumedly written by the creator of this article); Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought/research, nor a soapbox. Regardless of whther it is actually a speedy candidate (and it should be), strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I note that the author has actually made some attempt at wikification but it is still original research / spam for the author's website. -- RHaworth 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Oli Filth 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOR. Sandstein 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. May I suggest to the creator of this article to provide his/her expertise on the main article on Sinology, with appropriate sourcing, of course. This topic does not currently pass muster as a stand-alone article as it does appear to be a wholly unreferenced text dump that has not really been wikified. I'd be willing to bet that this article isn't entirely OR, and that content would be an asset to existing articles relating to the topic. LaMenta3 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above : the Sinology article gets the tone right, and cites appropriate sources. Further, it's not a large article by any means, so there's some scope to add a theory section there. --Oscarthecat 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I prod'ded the first incarnation of this article under the title Brief Introduction Of New Sinology--article has since been speedied twice under the original title and four times under the current title. --Finngall talk 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. Could probably be speedied again but let the AfD run so CSD G4 will apply in future. Dbromage [Talk] 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam OR. Salt as well. Although, I agree that the author should try to contribute to the existing Sinology article instead. —Travistalk 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No single book i could find dealing w/ 'Neo'. - GarbageCollection - !Collect 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Author Sinology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours for repeated reposting of this article. Shortly afterwards a sock account (NewSinology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) posted the essay again as New sinology. Oli Filth kindly rediected it to this article and gave the sock an "only warning". --Finngall talk 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And I have permanently blocked the sockpuppet account and extended the main account's block to one week; use of sockpuppet accounts to avoid a block and re-post an inappropriate article is not something I appreciate. - Mike Rosoft 07:42, 29 August 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.