Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropology in the tabloids


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology in the tabloids
Article looks like original research and smells a lot like copyvio Mecanismo | Talk 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 'Relisting to generate more discussion. Previous listing recived no votes other than nominator.' Mo0 [ talk ] 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - how can it be both? It can be original research or copyvio, but it can't be both.  Might be neither.  I am going to abstain for now. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It can easily be both. If someone writes original research on their own web page and then it's copy-pasted to Wikipedia, then it's both original research and a copyvio. Remember that "original research" means it's not based on any reputable sources (see WP:NOR). howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: anyone have a copy of Windows on Humanity? This (and quite a few other Wikipedia articles, not all by the same contributor) are very unwikified and cite this book as a source.  They may ALL be copyvios, but this is a print source so it's not easy to verify. Jamie (talk/contribs) 09:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is nothing of value here. If the author has something to say, add it to Supermarket tabloid, but delete this article.  Madman 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. - Bobet 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of several similar articles created by user, all appear to by copyvio of "Windows On Humanity" by Conrad Phillip Kottak -- Vary 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, whatever it is, it is not encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 01:16, 24 December 2005 (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.