Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newchellberry fissure

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 speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newchellberry fissure

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

Bringing this to AfD following declining a speedy for hoax. There are three pages of ghits - but a large number are wiki-type hits and not reliable. And three pages only wouldn't be much for a really notable subject. I feel that this needs some discussion. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax to me, nothing in any reliable sources. MB 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I find no sources which don't look like WP mirrors. In particular, there is no mention in Google Scholar. The article author was an SPA who edited only this article, on only two days, and never returned to add sources or defend it - a common pattern for hoaxers. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as it should've been, searches easily found only Wikipedia copied mirrors and by far nothing else at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a mention of it here, where it's called the Newchelberry fissure (1 L), but I can't be sure they didn't obtain the info from Wikipedia. If this is real, it's extremely obscure, as that is the only thing other than Wikipedia mirrors I've been able to find. Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz sites often derive info from Wikipedia - these days, what doesn't? (probably the Britannica, but you never know...) Peridon (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (edit conflict) Examining the ghits, every single one of them is a overt or disguised copy from WP. The ones labelled study guide are apparently automatically sourced from WP except quizlet which seems to be manually constructed from various sources. The chances of the term being genuine is extremely low. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 30 October 2016 (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.