Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese copy method


 * 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. Pigman ☿ 01:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese copy method

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a well-disguised piece of original research. The sources cited are illustrations of counterfeiting and intellectual property infringements, not the so-called "Chinese copy method".

Basically, the term is a neologism. The cited references do not support the existence of the subject of the article, but instead offer illustrations of what the creator is terming the "Chinese copy method". I've looked at the cited references in detail, and conclude as follows:


 * None of the sources talk about, or even mention, "Chinese copy method".
 * This and this are blog posts.
 * This one doesn't exist. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * delete,according wiki deletepolicy Avoid neologisms--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that if the term doesn't actually exist, this should be merged to Reverse engineering rather than deleting all content, as this phenomenon (of Chinese companies getting hold of foreign-made products, taking them apart to figure out how they're constructed, then making their own version, often in a blatantly illegal fashion) is well known and has been widely reported. Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about how much contribution this material would actually make to Reverse engineering. Little of the sourced content is actually about Chinese reverse engineering. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * China's contribution to the world economy and to reverse engineering is about equal to Japan's, and so by WP:Weight it should/will/is getting the right weight in Reverse engineering. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - With so little sources, it appears to be nothing but original research. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per discussion at Talk:Original object template method (the page has now been moved as, apparently, under this name, there are sources certifying its validity). Badagnani (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? User:Leonard G seems to believe there is, but I don't see any having been added to the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Research for reference is in progress - Leonard G. (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be going to the San Francisco Mechanics' Institute Library in San Francisco this Thursday, August 28th to see what supporting information is available. For additional defense of the article see Talk:Original object template method - Leonard G. (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As stated above, this article seems to trick you because it provides sources. However, upon closer inspection of the sources, I see no mention of what the article claims. It just seems to be random, irrelevant junk. I doubt this meets notability, and it really seems to be original research to me. I found nothing on Google but a mirror of Wikipedia.  Lady   Galaxy  22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, duplicates Reverse engineering. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (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.

A use of the term found
Use of term found. In the following the term is used in a technically inappropriate way in a common pejorative manner:

EUROPE WAS CROWING, and it could be heard all the way across the ocean.

Airbus called Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner "dreaming in seattle," and Airbus's then-CEO Noel Forgard dismissed the 787 as a "Chinese copy of [airbus's] A330." ...

This from Flying HIgh: How Boeing cut short Airbus's rule as king of the skies. James Thayer. The Weekly Standard (Dec 8, 2005) (1460 words). Found via Gale group (AP interactives)

Research will continue - Leonard G. (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)