Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saaspel
- 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising that would have to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopaedia article amongst many other failings. Given that in revision #178496882 Isa gajre (talk · contribs) signed xyr name as "Roy W. Blain" in the article, it's reasonable to conclude that this is the very Roy W. Blain who sells CDs and books about what the article discusses. That the article is full of peacock terms such as how the subject is "ideal" and "will cost a fraction", and how readers should have "little doubt" that the subject has "a major advantage" that nothing else can equal, adds to the blatant aspect. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard for promoting products. All Wikipedia content must be written from the Neutral point of view. There are those who oppose spelling reform. Wikipedia articles must not take sides in the debate and must not be promotional of one person's idea and products. In fact, single person's ideas don't belong here until the rest of the world has acknowledge them, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for standing upon. Lastly, articles in the English Wikipedia must be written in English. This isn't. It's written using the invented lexicon that it is promoting, which just adds to the fact that the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tagged it as CSD and the creator removed the CSD tags. I tagged it with a number of issue tags, and the creator removed those. Someone else prod'ed it, which was also removed. I'm not in the mood to fight with the user, so I'll just send this over to AFD and let the community offer their opinions on this. Original research and no sources are amongst the more obvious issues. Yngvarr 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete by all means. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new concept. I PRODded it, and before doing that I looked for sources; I found nothing except various attempts to promote the reform in various places. If all original research is removed from the article, what would remain would be "Saaspel is a proposed spelling reform of English based on pronunciation" - it's not even possible to find out which pronunciation they are basing it on. Also note that the author has added external links to the Saaspel site from a couple of other articles on spelling reform. --Bonadea (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those who manage to persevere all the way to the end of this barely comprehensible essay (even though they don't face any distractions on the way in the form of references etc) find it helpfully signed by one Roy W. Blain. Fails as OR, among various other things. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.