Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namtons


 * 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:CSD G7 --pgk 09:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Namtons


WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, zero ghits, fake reference given. "Namtons" is "Snotman" spelled backwards. I should tag this as db-vandal, but put it up for AfD for decision as that way if it is recreated, I can stick db-repost on this silliness.. Tubezone 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. The source listed in the article is right here and mentions absolutely nothing about "namtons". IrishGuy talk 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The source to which you refer is intended to give information about the context in which the legend developed: Grosse Pointe Park of the 1970's. Labeling an article about a character in an urban legend a "hoax" is a bit presumptuous. The article on "Bigfoot" is not labeled a hoax article, though the existence of Bigfoot itself has not been verified to the satisfaction of the scientific community. The article does not attest to the authenticity of the legend, just that such a legend exists about someone called Namtons.

The article was just posted yesterday. Why are you in such a hurry to have it deleted. The fact that you can construct anagrams from letters in a word is immaterial. For instance "Dog" is "God " spelled backwards, but what's your point? What is your criteria for legitimate folklore? Give me a chance to develop this a bit. Why not allow those familiar with this particular piece of Grosse Pointe Park folklore to make there own contributions? Why such Venom?

I am new to the Wikipedia community and offended at the reception I have received. Is there a way to defend oneself from other users who wish to gang up and delete something before giving it a chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotaboman (talk • contribs) --Scotaboman 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, the anagram isn't necessarily material, but it's kind of a red flag. So is "Namtons" establishing a kingdom on a planet in the Space Ghost universe, "Namtons" best buddy being named "Suds", and "Namtons" having come into being by dropping 'shrooms. So is a reference that's not really a reference and lack of Google hits or media mentions on a legend that's supposedly famous and over 30 years old. So does editing from a single purpose account and having made no other contributions.
 * Yes, there is a surefire way to keep people from ganging up and deleting your article: Write about something that's encyclopedically notable, and provide references to show that it's not made up. Right under the edit panel, it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" It's up to you to do that for things you put in WP. Rules for folklore are the same, you have to show the folklore exists and that it's notable.
 * No, it's not possible to leave it up until you find sources, etc. People with SPA's with put hoaxes and junk up every day, and editors get sick of having to wade through it. Find the proof then write the article. Simple enough. Tubezone 03:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tubezone... You say "Simple enough" but I can't find information on how to do this. How do I withdraw the article so that I may "Find the proof then write the article." as you say?


 * Well, your wish is our command, it's been zapped. You'll have to run it past WP:DRV to get it back into Wikipedia. I will db-repost this if you don't. Meanwhile, put it on a MySpace page or one of the many places on the web where you can post whatever you like. Tubezone 09:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As you have been told numerous times already: you need sources. This is completely unreferenced and therefore unverifiable. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irishguy...It is not "completely unreferenced" it is full of references. Just not referenced to your satisfaction.  I would like to "Get the references first then post the article.  How do I withdraw the article, until such time that I am confident I can provide enough references to be secure?


 * Delete It's a hoax. Eusebeus 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why accuse me of a hoax. I posted this in good faith.  I am trying to meet requirements but I am being slammed before given a chance.  Imperfection and incompleteness does not a hoax make.  If I knew there would be such a rush to delete it, I would have developed this more before posting it.  No-one seems willing to direct me to the procedure by which I may do that.  I am guilty of posting prematurely.  Name calling is not appropriate.  Saying the article is a hoax, is a slam on the author.


 * Delete or redirect to Urban Legend. meshach 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Finaly a constructive suggestion. I would be please to redirect to Urban Legend  it is an urban legend.  I am new to this. Would this then be a contribution in some part of the article?  Would I simply paste Namtons content at the end?--namtonshistorian 08:27, 25 November 2006 (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.