Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fung Shoe

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.

Fung Shoe

The result was DELETE as hoax / made up / OR. Alexf^(talk) 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is non-notable, cannot find a single reliable third party source. Nik thestoned 10:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have found the source !!!!! this would be me,,,, I am the Author of this article,, and the creator of Fung Shoe... Am I NOT a reliable source ? How could I find a reliable third Party Source if I created this term ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fung Shoe (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per ~~Neologisms~~. --Fæ (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assuming some common sense interpretation, obviously not clear enough. Though the article appears to be a neologism, the relevant guideline for deletion is Do not create hoaxes. Fæ (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My compliments to the author. This has inspired me to invent 'Flung Shoe', where the arrangement of one's environment and life is determined by the path and resting place (and collateral damage) of a randomly hurled trainer. Neither are encyclopaedic, however, being Original Research WP:OR. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Established and reputable dictionaries do not list every word that somebody invents, they look for evidence that other people use it and continue to do so at least for a time. In the same way, Wikipedia does not include every new word, and every new idea, even if the inventor knows he or she has come up with something brilliant. Wikipedia looks for evidence that others share at least some of the enthusiasm, which is essentially what notability is about in this instance. The problem is summed up by these words in the article [t]he term is also used ... - there is no verification that it is, except by the author and perhaps some friends. --AJHingston (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this is an amusing concept, and I have no doubt that the article creator came up with it, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There have to be secondary, reliable sources to establish notability. LadyofShalott 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LadyofShalott and AJHingston say it well. I declined the CSD nomination (Fæ: nowhere in the CSD does it say that neologisms can be speedily deleted), but don't see any evidence for notability. Ucucha 12:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, it could be speedied under G1 or G3 and we can skip 7 days by taking the SNOW option at this point. I am familiar with the issues around deleting neologisms. Fæ (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is neither patent nonsense, pure vandalism, nor a blatant hoax, so neither G1 nor G3 applies. Ucucha 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as invented; there is no speedy for neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable nonsense made up in one day.--EdwardZhao (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... Carrite (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (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.