Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fispeven analysis


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fispeven analysis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is a hoax. I could find absolutely no support for this term at Google, Google Scholar or Google Books; the only thing that turned up in a search was this article. There apparently really was an Augustine Hay, an obscure Scottish cleric; the article claims he invented this analysis, but I could find nothing connecting him with this subject. Both articles were written by the same editor on the same day. I prodded them both, and a brand-new special-purpose-account editor turned up at this article within the hour, removing the prod and claiming that they could verify the information in the article. I still think it's a hoax. Taking it to the community to decide. MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hoax. It's always fun when "sources" are given without even half of what's necessary to identify them. However, WorldCat returns absolutely no results for Currents in American Literature: The Roaring Twenties and Lost Generation and no valid results for The Evolution of Language Analyses. The only Google hits for "fispeven" outside of Wikipedia and mirrors are for FISPEven, the Fundación para la Investigación Clínica, epidemiológica y de salud pública en Venezuela (a Venezuelan public health organization). Well, I should say, almost the only hits; Google indexed a pdf entitled "fispeven analysis.pdf". However, that file is no longer available at its indexed location—which, for the record, was in the webspace of an individual user of the Pittsford Central School District (I decline to provide the link here because it is both broken and identifies the user in its URL). The overwhelmingly likely situation is that this, and the related article Augustine Hay, are literally things made up in school one day. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent research. Is this "hoax season" at Wikipedia? I've caught two in two days. (You might enjoy this one as well.) I shudder to think how many we are missing. Maybe it relates to the fact that school has been in session for a few weeks in the U.S.? --MelanieN (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Good call . I did numerous sweeps, found nothing internationally, major US news, even an unfiltered search yielded nothing. I sent an email to author Jenna Blum (an authority on writing technique) to ask for her view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Writer and writing analyst Jenna Blum emailed me that she had never heard of Fispeven analysis or Penta technique (although she indicated that it is still possible that they could exist); my sense is that is one more indication of either a hoax or nonnotability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (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.