Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genpets

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 of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genpets

Original article text said "It is currently not known whether GenPets are actual products or an elaborate hoax". Looks like a hoax to me, no references outside the original website. Delete due to no verifiable evidence of truthfulness or notability. Wickethewok 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment They are not a hoax, they are an artistic expression of Adam Brandejs.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, the peice is a eries of sculptures being shown in galleries around the world, apparently Switzerland and Alberta Canada right now, they are not a hoax, the website promotes the work.--Josh black32 20:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article sounds like an ad for an actual product. Part is copied from the [1]. Doesn't mention that this is a thesis project by a grad art student. BuckRose 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or not, it's spam.--Andeh 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is in desperate need of actual facts. Maybe a factual article about the artist would have been better. --Alamode 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Rewrite. It is an art project by Canadian artist Adam Brandejs, and the full story can be read here[2]. It has provoked lots of people and is rapidly becoming an internet phenomena as activists discover the website. May for these reasons be worthy an article, but it should be rewritten to reflect its true nature. Ramskjell 12:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep These are obviously very notable. And if not, let them become notable. I see its the same person who seems to have a dislike for many different articles, that don't suit his obvious preferances, who tries to delete articles about things he despises or doesn't know about. I will not name who this user is. Keep this article. James Spaingy McGrath

• Whatever vendetta you have against me, Spaingy, shouldn't affect your WP contributions. Please see WP:POINT for clarification. That aside, if you are voting for keep when everyone else has voted delete, it is usually helpful to state why you think it should be kept. Remember the idea is to form a consesus based on arguments made by editors - it isn't just a vote. Wickethewok 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now. If it becomes notable, then put it back up. ... discospinster _talk 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Dr Zak 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it definitely. Rewrite if necessary. This is, if you read the Brandejs.ca link previously mentioned, a work of art that poses thoughtful ethical questions to the future of bioengineering. I wouldn't categorise it as spam because the genpets aren't meant for sale, but to lure the reaction of people. Also, I think it is important that people who are baffled at first, including myself, to get a confirmation that they're in fact not real. User:Doc Daneeka 16 June 2006, 03:22 (UTC+1) _{(PS. Sorry if I violate some code by not agreeing with everyone else)}

Comment. But is it art notable? ... discospinster _talk 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you people?? This article was legitamite, its a thoughtful work of art. Many people believe genpets are real and a wikipedia entry showing they are merely art would resolve issues. There is no good reason to delete it, it is a notable piece of art and internet phenomena. Please put the article back! (The previous unsigned comment was left by User:66.105.67.194 )

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.