Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watermelon encode Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Watermelon_encode

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 Speedy delete a1, not enough context to explain what's going on here. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon encode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Can find no evidemce of this encoding method, eg google search "Watermelon encode" gives exactly 1 hit - this wikipedia article. WP:NRVE. Note that method is described in the article as "under construction" and is described in this revision as being developed by "Alex Y". The article creator and only substantive editor is Alexy13 so possible WP:OR. Canthusus (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When I declined the speedy, it was based on the a7. This could fall under a db-hoax. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I suggested a speedy, I wasn't entirely certain what category to use! It looks to me more like a non-notable work in progress rather than a deliberate hoax so I chose the nearest NN category I could find... Let's let this thing run now, someone might be able to demonstrate that it's a genuine & notable. I've given it a week or so to see if any more detail would emerge. Canthusus (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It could be a hoax, but it's more likely to be a description of the author's (incomplete) idea that simply hasn't been published elsewhere. Inappropriate for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No original research. EALacey (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure that G3 is appropriate - seems more like a hoax at worst, rather than intentional vandalism. Blodance (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (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.