Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Network Switch


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Great Network Switch
Delete! Pure invention of User:CoolKatt number 99999 who has introduced speculation in Wikipedia before. This article links unconnected events and makes them appear to be one large event which is part of some greater scheme - basically this is a theory that one person holds, and thusly unencylopedic. All the edits by others seemed to be mainly cleanup edits. This isn't even original research, but original speculation. Buckner 1986 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried Googling the phrase "Great Network Switch." When I eliminated Wikipedia and answers.com, I got a whopping seven hits, and not a one was related to this. This is WP:OR and does not belong here. GassyGuy 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and GassyGuy. This article is nothing but original research. —Whomp t/c  18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Only 13 hits on Yahoo outside of Wikipedia. It's all original research. Blueboy96 20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete for the reasons of everyone else above! Kramden4700 21:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire more appopriate on one of CoolKatt's ridiculous subpages. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment per CFIF, I am planning on moving it like a normal pagemove to a subpage. CoolKatt number 99999 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much OR, and most of the deals in this "switch" were unconnected to one another except for being in the same decade. Nate 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above and due to the fact it is pure speculation. Rekarb Bob 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I take issue with those claiming this exists solely in CoolKatt's amazing imagination. It almost seems like some of the the events themselves would have to be untrue in order for the events that are to be disconnected, and it looks like they aren't. The idea that the Fox/New World and ABC/Scripps deals, at least, were connected doesn't appear to be, at least solely, CoolKatt's:, and the ABC/Scripps and CBS/Group W connection has been in the WJZ article for a full year: . The only event it seeks to connect with the others that seems disconnected is the formation of UPN and the WB. Yes, the name appears to be solely CoolKatt's, but if this article is to be deleted we'll want to delete references to "The Great Network Switch" in other articles, since that would appear to be a neologism. Yes, it is mostly unsourced and essentially consists of an essay, which is OR no matter how many sources you give it... but there is something to it. (CoolKatt, why don't you just get an account on GeoCities or something to put your stuff so you don't get harassed about it on Wikipedia? I'm sure people would love to read it if their first response wasn't fuming at it being inappropriate for Wikipedia.) Note: RfC and ArbCom case in progress against this user. Morgan Wick 03:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not move to a user page. I stumbled on to this article from the "random article" button and it seems to majorly be WP:OR and possibly some really bad fiction. Moving it to a user page would violate WP:NOT. It is also a neologism. Given the evidence mentioned above, this is the work of a problem user who appears to inject all sorts of fiction into the Wikipedia, which is just wrong. Cabled Substitution 05:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coincidental and unrelated events, not to mention a coined phrase by the author. &mdashTwigboy 18:11, 26 July 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.