- 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Patent nonsense. No google hits apart from mirror sites. None of the institutions mentioned exist Nuttah68 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is not patent nonse, but it is a hoax -- Whpq 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have a lot to say about the sewing dragon. Although it's existence is not readily proven, it is still a debatable myth. Why, look at bigfoot; sure, he is more widely known, but chances are he is fake. Every "myth" (quotations because sewing dragon exists!) needs a place to start. If the sewing dragon is deleted from wikipedia's archives, no one will ever be graced to learn about it, and by the time they do, November 27th of 2008 will have already passed. But please; it may be a hoax, it may be "nonsense", and for all you know, it could be real, just like bigfoot, so give the sewing dragon a chance. The sewing dragon would give you chance if he could. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.35.70 (talk)
- Delete - Although the above user's argument has a certain appeal, the issue ends up coming down to verifibility. In the Yeti case, we can verify that there is a notable myth. In this instance, I can find little evidence to convince me that the Sewing Dragon is a myth subject to significant debate. The article's pictures also leave something to be desired. →Bobby← 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "relatively new origination" = Delete. Pictures too. --humblefool® 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Page was replaced with comments by article creator.--humblefool® 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to delete this myth, why don't you delete other dragons, like the Chinese or Aztec dragons? There isn't any proof of those two. Yet, people still choose to believe in them. The people who believe in the Sewing Dragon should have just the same chance to express their believes. The only reason why it hasn't popped out previously is because it was only spoken of in close circles. Wikipedia is now giving the dragon it's chance to spread. Deleting this article would be an insult to those who believe in this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - If you can provides reliable sources that can be used to verify this myth, then you will have met the criteria for article inclusion. -- Whpq 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The question isn't whether the dragon itself exists--the question is whether anyone other the author of the article and his/her friends have heard of it. WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. --Masamage 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Masamage has pretty much said what I would otherwise say. --Dennisthe2 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that the article is on Wikipedia, your friends can learn about this fascinating dragon. His background is quite interesting, and now more people will be able to experience the wonders of this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)
- That is not what Wikipedia is for. That is what Geocities is for. Until the myth becomes established, it has no place here. Follow the rules. --Masamage 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This myth is established, it just isn't well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.55.41 (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:NFT and WP:OR before you continue to argue this point. If you refuse to read them, I have nothing else to say. --Masamage 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This myth is plausible and there should be no need to delete it. The reasearch seems detailed enough, so I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Roche (talk • contribs)
- Strong Delete, complete and utter nonsense. No sources for the upcoming 'festival', blatant example of something made up in school one day.--Nydas(Talk) 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inadequately referenced, and strong smell of OR. WMMartin 15:00, 5 December 2006 (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.