Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic swimming system


 * 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. Borderline speedy for patent nonsense.  Sandstein  20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Celtic swimming system

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable topic, failing to establish the existence of a specific swimming system. No sources confirm this online at all, except a link to a book by the article's creator. I considered blanking the page with a WP:REDIRECT to Human swimming, but I think this would only serve to affirm the author's publication has an element of validity, and I do not see any at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, original research, and borderline nonsense or at least "something I made up one day". The only source for this being "a thing" is the editor's own self-published e-book, so this is basically promotional.  A deeper problem, aside from conflict of interest, is that the central claim is essentially farcical.  Swimming "as entertainment or just effortless tread" in calm water by using already well-defined swimming techniques, like the various forms of backstroke listed, isn't a "swimming system", it's just typical recreational swimming, found all over the world where bodies of water are.  I'm a big ol' fan of lots of genuinely Celtic stuff, but this isn't among them.  Might as well define sitting around in pubs/bars with a beer and some friends to be "the Celtic drinking and socializing system", since it too spontaneously arose in the British Isles and north-west coastal Europe, just like this "swimming system" (and all over the rest of the world, just like this "swimming system").   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While I support deletion I'm not sure that User:Lepota—who has created a number of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR articles of late, it seems to me, in at least two distinct areas—is L.L. Cosmo? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Striking thru comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Until the author completes this sentence: The celtic stroke is ... Google cannot find Two Swimming Systems: Colchian and Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu plus Celtic swimming system technique on paper or eBook. The rest of the references are a century old. What do we know about swimming now that we didn't then? How to swim 100 m in 0:46.91 instead of 1:05.8.  Gimme a break. Rhadow (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * continued -- We are being toyed with here. IP is a SPA, and found (or published) the Amazon offering after I did the search of Amazon in multiple countries two days ago. The sample on Amazon is a work that has not been proofread or spell-checked; I suspect WP is being used to promote a work of dubious quality. I also suspect that the reason the references are so old is that -- if they exist -- they are now in the public domain and were used for a copypasta Kindle book. The author of that book has assembled other ebooks from out-of-copyright works, or bad translations of other work. I vote a Speedy here. Rhadow (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the Nom, I would support Rhadow's recommendation of a speedy delete (and no Redirect, please). My intention was not to out an editor, but I have good reasons, based on other work I've had the privelege to look at, to think that an author is using WP to promote self-published stuff on various esoteric topics. Interesting that the page creator managed to copypaste a large amount from Amazon before it was published. I won't bother deleting the WP:COPYVIO as I don't envisage the article surviving for very long. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, i found this book, published on 6 November 2017 with 200 pp. The Swimming Systems: Colchian and Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu plus Celtic swimming system technique it has hundreds of strokes, as well as swimming systems, interesting Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu system of Nihon Eiho (Japanese traditional swimming styles) and description of: Yoko-oyogi, Hitoe-noshi, Futae-noshi, Morote-noshi, Ryowa-noshi, Katanukite, Tsugite-noshi, Onukite, Nukite-noshi, Hayanukite, Hira-noshi, Konukite, Kenoshi established in 2014, as well as others. Cheers! having good fun!--178.223.56.246 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete author of aforementioned book seems to have a role in the AFD article. Goggle still has a cache conecting them. It's an arcane subject for which there are no other sources. It's hilarious that, as stated by sock IP just above, a book was published to support the article a couple days ago! Add article to comedic subjects category? Also maybe a good idea to warn/block user on WP:NOTHERE basis.104.163.155.95 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note three of the four sources added by the IP above turn out to be fakes. The sources exist, but the word "celtic" does nto appear in any of the books based on Google searches in the digitzed books. I tried other words as well, which worked find in Google books "search within the book" function... it's just Celtic that does not return results. IP is undoubtedly article author, and should be blocked for adding bad sources.104.163.155.95 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2017 (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.