Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administratium

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administratium

Administratium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An alleged notable joke in scientific circles, but unsupported by citations. But even if supported by citations, still unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no references, plenty of google hits but none that I could find meet WP:RS. If a major news source had fallen for the joke/spoof/hoax, then maybe. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm familiar with this through its references in the Ig Nobel prize ceremony, and Marc Abrahams's use of it in a discussion on a radio show I hosted a few years ago. It's clearly signposted as a joke element (etc.) and journalists really ARE becoming less educated, all the time. John Warburton 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced Article appears to be entirely unreferenced. Delete unless suitable published references provided. Dugwiki 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Ok, I've added a citation to the 1991 Ig Nobel report, which mentions this, but I don't really know how to use citations properly. Could someone please look it over? John Warburton 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable spoof as the Ignobel Prize suggests. --Bduke 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep per BDuke. Chris 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a worthy colleague of Unobtanium. -- Bpmullins | Talk 03:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable per Ig Nobels & well-referenced (should note in text about original appearance also be in ==References==?) Matchups 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable work of satire. Just because nobody's mistaken it for a serious article doesn't mean it's insignificant. --Poochy 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Poochy and BDuke .The article is also an important piece of pop culture. User: Anonymous 08:45 6 February 2007

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.