Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Arbor (nonexistent person)

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. Sandstein (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor (nonexistent person)

Limited evidence of notability of the concept, seems to largely be original research. TeaDrinker (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har har. Delete. A specific instance of indexing screw-ups, with no sign of notability, impact, sources, or even uniqueness. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. WP:HOAX even, why not? Xdenizen (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a secondary source somewhere. Perhaps mention in mountweazel? Apropos of nothing, I have actually met a person named Ann Arbor.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Hoax~~, found nothing Google searching. ~~Until I see secondary sources, I'm willing to say this is a hoax~~ Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not a hoax, but it's still not notable enough for Wikipeida Doc Strange (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It clearly isn't a hoax; it's trivially verifiable. J.T. Hoff, for example, was based in Ann Arbor[2], so the "Arbor A" co-credit is some kind of OCR or human transcription error. But it's only verifiable through original research, and due to the lack of secondary sources, is unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict w/ above] Comment. While the example papers suggest this is not a hoax, the concept is only notable enough for Wikipedia if someone somewhere else has already written about it. Regarding the personification of Ms. A. Arbor, one might do better to investigate the jeer of U. Mich. rivals, "Ann Arbor is a whore."[3][4][5] I doubt this idea should be a high priority for the encyclopeida either. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need an article on this, though I am not sure of the title. This has in fact been cited--its one of the well-known examples that can be seen in any citation index. "False citations" perhaps, but I need to see if there is in fact a standard term--it will be in one of Garfield's many essays. The point is that it is not a transcription error in the ordinary sense--its an error from transcribing blindly without thinking about what the references actually is, and therefore evidence of total authorial and editorial carelessness. DGG (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phenomenon described could be covered in an article. However, it does not appear feasible to rework this one. Let's delete and someone like DGG may produce a definitive article on the more general subject. --Stormbay (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.