Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concrete Hippo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and merge to Walsall. Bratschetalk 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete Hippo

This article started out as a stub about a statue in Walsall, but has been turned into rambling lunacy. It may be appropriate to revert it back to the stub, but since there's only a single reference even for the original information, which itself was just a passing reference, I felt we should review the subject itself to see if any of this is salvageable. Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete without prejudice. There's so much garbage here that it'd take a while to dig through, and to revert it all the way to the beginning, which was a passing reference indicates this article isn't strong enough to survive on its own. However, if it truly is notable, someone will recreate it and give valid facts and information afterwards.--み使い Mitsukai 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see some evidence that all this didn't really happen. Please, think of the Hippo, they're onto him, they're gonna pull his repeat prescription and he's turned to sniffing glue, he's got 5 baby Hippo's to feed, this wiki article is all he has left. I'll concede that there is a slight element of fabrication involved in our little biography, but the bit about Joe DiMaggio is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpTheBracket (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup, has potential, and if true and verified, is encyclopedic. Ardenn 21:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Article is a documentation of a series of evenets that there is proff has happend, it is referenced and has truth, not simply about a concrete Hippo but also a article on urban myth that needs to be kept/moved to a different category. KEEP IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.145.3 (talk • contribs)
  • I Find no evidence that the that the events didnt happen, has been sourced, keep, move to other catogry no deletion I myself have heard some of these rumors in passing, at nowhere is it stated that everything is true and is always described/insinuated as rumors, i didnt know documenting of POSSIBLE events wasnt allowed in wikipedia even when described as so. keep article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavs luv land (talk • contribs)
    • Example of above "editor"'s useful contribution to the article: [1]
  • comment have done a quick tidy up on the article. Still not great but better than it was I think. No Vote Jcuk 22:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge some small description of the statue with Walsall if people are so keen on it, and delete this article. -- Mithent 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as Mithent. -- SGBailey 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as Mithent. Please also sign on to Wikiquote and vote to delete the dumb-ass "quotations" attributed to this lump of concrete. Camillus (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the verifiable information (basically the original stub, plus any sourced and verified additional tidbits) with Walsall as Mithent suggests. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly isnt true? If referenced should be left alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavs luv land (talk • contribs)
    • References provide Wikipedians a means to verify information. Inventing fictious references fools nobody. I've reverted these attempts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:45, 15 February 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.