Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHO MADE JAMES BOWIE'S FAMOUS KNIVES--THE TRUE STORY

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHO MADE JAMES BOWIE'S FAMOUS KNIVES--THE TRUE STORY[edit]

Unencyclopedic essay filled with original research. Fails WP:SOAP. The creator even says, "This article is a condensation of my 28-page search paper with the same title in the library of congress." Cunard (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic of this article isn't notable on its own and seems like undue weight on such a trivial aspect of the Bowie Knife even if it were written as a viable article. But the whole article here is framed as essay/OR/fringe-theory-esque essay, unencyclopediac in style. Add a sentence or two with real WP:RS WP:CITE (I assume that's what all the parenthesized numbers refer to, in...some bibliography somewhere?) to the knife article about its origins? DMacks (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and unencyclopedic. If there is anything worthy of being kept then it should be in the Bowie knife article. The paper itself is not notable of an article. Readro (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, not encyclopedic, and a POV fork as well, I think. Skinny87 (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MYSPACE. I think the editor assumes this is a place that will accept his research paper. --Adam in MO Talk 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a condensation of my 28-page search paper with the same title in the library of congress. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smerdis, that's really an insult to original researchers... Drmies (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. Obviously not encyclopedic. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable among the numerous other problems. Camw (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move content, get refs merge into Bowie Knife. Machete97 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (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.