Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turboencabulator

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 snowball keep `'mikka (t) 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turboencabulator

del. Main problems with this in-joke is notability and wikipedia:Verifiability. Despite a lengthy dispute with the fan of the article in Talk:Turboencabulator no verifiable references are provided, no any independent reputable sources. The references present in the text are webcopy of the text from a 50-year old obscure journal of unsure reference, a pdf of an alleged General Electric manual (a laughable reference in view of photoshopping), a video and an interview of an actor published in the humor section of a nonnotable company, so the interview itself may well be a meta-spoof. User:Brouhaha insists thar the "General Electric Catalog 1962/1963" is a valid reference. I cannot verify the existence of this catalog and thus I am called "too lazy to verify it". If someone can verify it, goodspeed. User:Brouhaha insists that the "General Electric Catalog 1962/1963" did contain the description of this fictional device and keeps reverting my cautious wording, the only statement I can verify: "It is claimed that the catalog contained". It may well be that this statement is a hoax-within-a-hoax.

Among not very large number of google hits for the word I failed to find reputable confirmations of notability of the joke.

Concluding, I genuinely wasted plenty my time trying to dig to the bottom of this hoax, and convinced myself that the article is ripe for deletion. `'mikka (t) 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable meme that has survived 60 years and become an internet meme with 30,000 Google hits for retro encabulator. I don't know if the GE catalog PDF is a real screw-up or a spoof (and if the latter, which is likely, whether the author of the article was himself hoaxed or trying to perpetrate a hoax), but either way it's still a notable-enough meme. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 12:15Z
  • My apologies, I was searching google for "turbo encabulator" only, not for "retro" (so I guess user:brouhaha is right, I am lazy) I am ready to withdraw the nomination if anyone points to a single independent (i.e., not source), reputable and verifiable reference. `'mikka (t) 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NO!! If you delete the article for the retro-encabulator, you'll have to delete the article for God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.237.172.226 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep as a notable meme, but the generalization right above this argument is invalid. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable meme. I agree that the citation of the IEE article may be a ficticious/humorous part of the original joke, but the interview with Mike Kraft seems reasonably credible as regarding the retroencabulator video, and I dispute the notion that a catalog published by a major international corporation is not a legitimate reference. --Brouhaha 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it's a notable joke mellery 04:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because it's been an engineering joke for decades. It seems like it will be a joke magnet, though, and I'm not sure what to do about that. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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.