Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary

: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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[Wickedictionary]]=

:{{la|Wickedictionary}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wickedictionary Stats])

:({{Find sources|Wickedictionary}})

Page created by likely socks with prior ties to socking on Wikipedia article about book's author, Derek Abbott. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil. WP:SPA spam promo accounts heavily associated with this article appears to be: {{user|SonOfBierce}}, {{user|CynicIncorporated}}, {{user|SatoSato}}, {{user|Steamturn}}, and {{user|Californicator}}. — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

:Update: Conflict of interest report listed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wickedictionary_and_Derek_Abbott. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Tentative, weak keep, but cull. Obviously, the whole example section needs to go, some of the references are unacceptable, the lede wants a rewrite. But I think there are a couple of actual reliable sources with significant coverage. There's one, for certain. The ForeWord Reviews reference is a nontrivial treatment of the book in an independent source. The issue comes down to whether that's all there is. The "book launch" thing is neither independent nor reliable. The 891 ABC Adelaide radio interview is local coverage. The Sacramento Bee coverage is literally two lines of text and so can be discounted as trivial. That leaves me with two sources I do not have access to: the Pace University student newspaper Pace Press, and the British men's magazine Mayfair. I'm not able to evaluate whether the coverage is trivial, so -- for the moment, anyway -- I'll give that the benefit of the doubt. The question is whether they're reliable sources for notability. I'm not sure that's the case for the student-press paper. Mayfair is (or at least was) sort of the British equivalent to Playboy (although the believability of reading it "for the articles" has dropped since its change in ownership); regardless, if the coverage there is substantive, I think this inches past the threshold (with the Bee and Australian radio helping to fill the gaps). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

::No longer standing in the way of this deletion. The Pace Press material doesn't help us any, and I simply cannot find easy access to a specific back issue of a softcore porn mag not sold on my continent. I still believe the Mayfair coverage, if substantive, clears the notability bar for this, but I'm not willing to contest deletion for it on that faith alone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete this vanity-press book that utterly fails WP:BK. This article is a WP:ADVERT, as is the article Derek Abbott, which I am going to put up for AfD later today. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Abbott. — Cirt (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I think at some point we have to say, enough's enough, and stop rewarding self-promotion that violates WP:SOAP, committed by people who blatantly disregard our firmest policies (like socking, especially to this extreme), regardless of notability. There are reasons other than notability to delete or keep an article, and we need to remember that. Gigs (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: Please see also deletion discussion at Wikiquote, q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The WQ discussion is irrelevant, since there is no reference to this book in the WQ article.--Collingwood (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's most certainly relevant, as socks with likely ties to the subject were spamming the "Wikedtictionary" all over the website as a form of promotion / advert. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether or not that's the case, looking at WQ will not shed any light on that.--Collingwood (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT, WP:ARTSPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete: As far as the reviews go I echo Squeamish Ossifrage's sentiments. What concerns me is that there's no mention of this book or of Derek Abbott at LOC. Most disturbingly, there's no mention of it at Amazon either, even though it was apparently published under Amazon's auspices. Faustus37 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:: No opinion on the AfD, but the book was apparently published in Australia -- or at least, that's where the author is. Library of Congress is for American books, the rest of the world has no obligation to submit books to it, so that's no indication either way. The "CreateSpace" Amazon imprint is for their self-published books, and the title is easily found [http://www.amazon.com/Wickedictionary-Dr-Derek-Abbott/dp/1463668260 there]. Barsoomian (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2012 (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.