Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thishdin
Hoax. Nice try, and to my mind of much greater interest than dozens of dutiful articles about this or that character in "popular culture" (i.e. that which is cannily marketed to preteens of all ages), which of course live, flourish and multiply. Oh, I can quibble with the details, such as inability to spell "separate"; but this attempt, though doomed, is fairly noble. -- Hoary 05:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ..... PS our author (or somebody sharing the same IP number) has now fixed the spelling of "separate". -- Hoary 08:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - this was speedy deleted once and recreated. It's kind of funny, though. Cdc 05:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Waaa? BJAODN, of course. Gamaliel 05:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I left a message on the user's page to indicate that if he's describing some work of fiction, the article needs to make it clear, and that if it's not notable fiction, or if it's original fiction, Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. It's a shame, though, because it sounds honestly sorta cool. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If he's describing fiction? There's clearly no "if" about it. Delete. I wouldn't argue against a speedy even. -R. fiend 06:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that. But I can name you at least two cases where articles about potentially encyclopedic topics were marked for speedy deletion because a) one was describing a fictional character, without mentioning "this is a fictional character from the such-and-such comic book series", b) one was a purportedly psychic individual and the description was written from a perspective that accepted unquestioningly that she had extrasensory powers she had used to evade the Nazis. Both would have needed work, of course, and neither of these specific examples would have been worth it, as they were both copyvios. But the mistake of forgetting to say "Oh, and this is all fiction which can be found in such-and-such book or comic or TV show" is so frequent I don't think we want to set a precedent of speedy deleting anything that we don't understand but know is fictional. (Particularly as even long-time users forget to click "What links here", which clears up the mystery 70-80% of the time...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Er, are you suggesting that (b) would have been OK had it not been a copyvio? Say it ain't so! (Oh right, yes -- lots of people here believe that even "Sollog" deserves oxygen of publicity on Wikipedia. Count me out!) Meanwhile, Thishdin is a potentially encyclopedic topic within a real-life and notable work of fiction to the tune of having a grand total of zero hits at Google. I bet the author is chuckling over the earnestness with which his/her little joke is being discussed. -- Hoary 08:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Are you saying that without even knowing who (b) was that you can automatically judge that she was not "potentially encyclopedic", as I phrased it? no, I am not suggesting that (b) would have been okay if it hadn't been a copyvio, because in this particular case it wasn't. What I'm saying is that it would be a mistake to adopt a general rule of "if it's clearly not a real series of events that happened according to the way most observers would interpret things, let's speedy delete it." That means that if a potentially encyclopedic topic gets written about by someone who doesn't think to put context in or who doesn't have the perspective to know that the way they see things isn't the way most people do, it relies on blind luck that it gets seen by the person who recognizes the context or the lack of perspective before the person who says "oh, fiction!" and slaps it with a {{delete}} tag. Considering how many people regularly announce on VfD "I don't know what the hell this is! Some -- fan-thing, that's all I know!" when clicking "What links here" would have told them exactly what it's from, that's not what strikes me as a very good idea. -- Antaeus Feldspar 09:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Antaeus, I didn't notice the mention of "Speedy". Speediness aside, any article about "a purportedly psychic individual [which article unquestioningly accepts] that she had extrasensory powers she had used to evade the Nazis" sounds like a candidate for deletion, unless of course the purported psychic abilities supplement some other feature of the person that's notable. In practice, the combination seems rare: "psychics" tend to be notable only for their appetite for publicity (e.g. by writing Wikipedia articles about themselves) and their ability to make money. -- Hoary 13:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed! =D I have no problem whatever with articles on purported "psychics" being put up on VfD, because most of them are not notable no matter what they or their followers think. I just don't want us to miss the exceptions, even if I don't believe those exceptions really have psychic powers either, because they could be the rare case where an individual really has become notable, even if they wouldn't in a less gullible world. So, yeah, VfD is okay, but speedy delete IMHO would be improper. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Er, are you suggesting that (b) would have been OK had it not been a copyvio? Say it ain't so! (Oh right, yes -- lots of people here believe that even "Sollog" deserves oxygen of publicity on Wikipedia. Count me out!) Meanwhile, Thishdin is a potentially encyclopedic topic within a real-life and notable work of fiction to the tune of having a grand total of zero hits at Google. I bet the author is chuckling over the earnestness with which his/her little joke is being discussed. -- Hoary 08:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that. But I can name you at least two cases where articles about potentially encyclopedic topics were marked for speedy deletion because a) one was describing a fictional character, without mentioning "this is a fictional character from the such-and-such comic book series", b) one was a purportedly psychic individual and the description was written from a perspective that accepted unquestioningly that she had extrasensory powers she had used to evade the Nazis. Both would have needed work, of course, and neither of these specific examples would have been worth it, as they were both copyvios. But the mistake of forgetting to say "Oh, and this is all fiction which can be found in such-and-such book or comic or TV show" is so frequent I don't think we want to set a precedent of speedy deleting anything that we don't understand but know is fictional. (Particularly as even long-time users forget to click "What links here", which clears up the mystery 70-80% of the time...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- BJAOD... Tree octopi, as linked in the article [1] appear to be a hoax or joke rather than part of fiction Kappa 09:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Misinformation. utcursch 13:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's just a test page, should probably have been speedied. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I think it's a conscious joke. The reference to the tree octopus (another of the famous hoax websites, this from U.Washington pranksters or U. Oregon) gives it away, if nothing else had. BJAODN. Geogre 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and send to BJAODN. P Ingerson 18:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Whatever it is, it doesn't belong on wiki. Wyss 20:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg 21:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and send to BJAODN. Blatant hoaxing at its finest (and neat satire on certain styles of anime, if I'm not mistaken). I took the liberty of wikifying, and of course fixing "octopi". JRM 21:46, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
- Delete [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sent to BJADON! Delete! --L33tminion | (talk) 21:21, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. BJAODN material. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)