Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunk Land

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 this mess. Hedley 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gunk Land

Probable hoax. Purportedly it was a children's show that aired exactly one episode, in Wisconsin, in 1984; however, as is usual for hoaxes, mysterious circumstances seem to have conspired to put obstacles in the path of anyone trying to verify that the show actually existed: the lead actor "died under mysterious circumstances in 1989", the director/producer "remains anonymous to this day", and rumoredly "tried to destroy all of the props and footage after his show was cancelled." The external links claim to list the "Gunk Land Official Site" and "Gunk Land at the Internet Movie Database", but in fact "Gunk Land" has no listing at the IMDB. Neither does its supposed lead actor, Glen Thompson. The "official site" is actually a fan site, but out of its multiple subpages, only "About", "Characters" and "Video Clips" are anything but mere "Coming Soon" stubs. The video clips don't function, so they provide no evidence for the show's existence and the "Characters" pages list all character images as "coming soon". Then there's the show itself: this was supposedly a children's show, complete with educational content -- but the lead character, the little girl "Jane", is played by an adult male actor? There's "a giant phallic looking pink furry puppet named One Eye", who "has been known to spit a viscous fluid when pet under the chin"? "Poh Pie cuts off his arms to stop his urges from touching the TV set"? Who believes that anyone would have put this on the air as a kid's program in 1984, at the height of the Reagan era? This is a very full-featured hoax, and truth be told, I find these retroactive creations of shows that never existed rather intriguing, but they're not appropriate material for Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I checked out the article before reading your full nomination, and concluded the same thing (though you went into more detail!). --Petros471 21:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although kudos to the people who took the time to make such a hoax, I guess. -- MisterHand 23:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hello, I am the person who submitted the article Gunk Land, and while I am excited to think that people think I concocted this absurd story, I have to admit my own imagination is far too lackluster. I would like to petition to keep the info up as it is real. I distinctly recall seeing it sometime back in the mid 80s. Although I am not clear of the channel, and it could very well have been one of the local cable access shows. You have to keep in mind that while the story is potentially subversive - look at the much more successful Pee Wee's Playhouse. I distinctly recall much sexual innuendo between the puppets and the live characters such as Miss Yvonne. Also look at the subversive aspects of "You Can't Do That on Television" which aired during the Bush era. To say a show is a hoax because of its potent content is silly and short sighted. I can see your point about the "anonymous" director. I chalked that up to either shame or embarassment and the need for the artist to seperate him/herself from the failed project (aka Alan Smithee). Anyhow, I do hope you consider my petition to keep the article intact, and hope all of you have some Happy Holidays! Thank you for your consideration! :) -- Aidan_NY 23:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, without sources you aren't making much of a case for the article. -- MisterHand 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's true MisterHand, I am not able to make as much a case for the article. It seems to be much harder to prove something exists especially when I am merely going by my memory here. The fan site is the only offering of confirmation that the show exists coupled with my memory I have of the media experience. I clearly remember this show, as well as the more popular Sid & Marty Kroft live action lineup of the late 70s. I also can't help but see humor and irony in the concept of an anonymous jury debating the validity of my memories and experiences. :P Anyhow, I have contacted the fansite creator but haven't heard back. I was hoping to contribute my memories of the show. I guess I'll keep looking. I'll see what I can find on IMDB. That seems to be another reputable source that exudates fact - thanks for the lead Francis Tyers!-- Aidan_NY 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting that you added a (non-working) link claiming to be "Gunk Land at the Internet Movie Database" and now you're referring to it as a lead... -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If it is a real show then you should be able to find some references somewhere. Try IMDB maybe? - FrancisTyers 23:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax per nom. Domain gunkland.com created 2005-12-17 by Skye Thorstenson, whose website according to Google (DMOZ) specializes in "Internet experiments". "Screenshots" on "official website" look like photoshop jobs, not something from 1984. In fact, the JPEGs have EXIF Software tag of "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh". --Quarl 01:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: article creator is User:Aidan_ny (not User:Aidan_NY). If this AFD results in delete, also delete Gunkland and Gunk land and the crap references added to Gunge. --Quarl 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And the references to "Gunk Land" added to Gunge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (My 2005-12-25 01:15 UTC comment was vandalized by User:69.107.132.236 (who signs comments as Aidan_NY) --Quarl 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
  • It also doesn't even deserve a mention at List of hoaxes --Quarl 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if only it was true :( - FrancisTyers 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I barely scanned the article because this is the kind of thing people spend lifetimes trying to forget. Nice work to nom -- JJay 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an interesting hoax. Here are the meta tages for that page: "The Elk Hotel, Elk Hotel, theelkhotel, Film, Opera, San Francisco, Skye Thorstenson, Daniel Paul Bates, Veronica Klaus, Mara Luthane". The Elk Hotel at least has an IMDB entry, as well as a wikipedia entry. Ronabop 03:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - seems non-verifiable. --Daveb 04:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this is a hoax, then it should be recategorized under hoax section. If not, then the debate should shift whether or not Wikipedia should even have a hoax section that links to other pages that are hoaxes. --trickster 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Metacomment: the preceding comment is by User:Lostheadfactory whose only edit is this comment. Skye Thorstenson's web site is www.lostheadfactory.com. --Quarl 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia does not keep hoaxes. --Quarl 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Correction, Wikipedia actually does keep hoaxes, at Category:Hoaxes. However, there is a difference between keeping a hoax that was perpetrated in the outside world, and achieved some level of lasting notability (Atlanta Nights, Cottingley Fairies, Hitler Diaries to name just a few), and describing them accurately as hoaxes, and wasting time with non-notable hoaxes that people have tried to play on Wikipedia itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skye Thorstenson --Quarl 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and send the author to a writing class, or at least chip in to buy him a copy of Elements of Style. Flyboy Will 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, "I thought we were supposed to be civil under the Wikipedia guidelines - nice to see such a kind community being fostered here - "and send the author to a writing class, or at least chip in to buy him a copy of Elements of Style." - and Carl or Amy - here is the list of hoaxes that Wikipedia supposedly does not contain. :) I guess the debate is up to what constitutes a hoax - by saying that a short lasting hoax is not in name a relevant hoax. Then what is it? Since I am not as wholly credentialed journalists and copy editors as the lot of you, I thought I might gleam something by asking (because I actually got really informed by Flyboys dropa stone article. I never realized there was a recorded history of alien visitation in existance. lostheadfactory 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "I thought I might gleam something by asking (because I actually got really informed by Flyboys dropa stone article. I never realized there was a recorded history of alien visitation in existance." There's little point in arguing with a liar like you, is there? The dropa article is not "Flyboys" [sic], as you call it; a look at its edit history doesn't show him editing it at all. Even if he had, however, we have already explained to you the rather significant difference between Wikipedia recording the details of an externally notable hoax and Wikipedia being abused to attempt the perpetration of a hoax. What do we see in the first four lines of Dropa? "Skeptics note, however, a number of problems with the case (and a lack of corroborative evidence), which offers significant doubt as to the reality of the more sensationalistic Dropa claims. Mainstream critics argue that the entire affair is a hoax." Your "Gunk Land" article, on the article, tries to pass itself off as the real thing. Don't bother replying if the only replying you can do depends on ignoring the crucial distinction between recording a notable hoax and trying to play a new hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was just posting a good natured hoax article on wikipedia. (redundant info to follow: A hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, for personal aggrandizement or to provoke social change through awareness) my point is that i was amazed that a layman like me with no obvious practical experience in editing, research, journalism could put up information. It was a practicle joke. In regards to gunkland - yes i am a liar. i actually liked your introductory delete note and wanted to thank you for taking the time to write it. -- lostheadfactory 23:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Reviewing most of Wikipedia's general guidelines, I realize I am still inept in proper coding - but it seems to me that Quarl seems to be quite over-excited in his psuedo witch hunt (Reviewing all of his heated and persistant and inane edits to mistakes that are common with a newbie really causes me to take a step back. I am not versed in how to add "comments" to these pages and will cut and paste the previous entry and fill in my reply.) - I understand most of everyone's comments in how Gunkland is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I felt it was because of the fairly recent criticism concerning this site, and my growing interest in the nature of hoaxes. Gunkland wasn't created specifically for Wikipedia - but I was planning on using Wikipedia to help make it a fact - as it is known that the internet audience is increasingly relying on the internet for fact. Gunkland is my thesis project on the blending of media experiences (blurring horror, sexploitation and children's programming) and posing an argument about whether or not asexual characters can exude either homosexuality (like spongebob or teletubbies. The Elk Hotel is a film that exists and is currently being finished - I did this all in good humor, and was not trying to cause people anxiety attacks as I seem to have caused Quarl as represented in his crude criticism - (referring to his comment about getting rid of the "crap" on the gunge page - although the word crap is totally appropriate for Gunkland in the sense that taboo bodily fluids are figuratively exploited in the world I am creating. I realize that creating a hoax needs much more work before it is generally released into the world. This was a great test for me though! lostheadfactory 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for coming forward with the truth. I'm sorry I used the word "crap"; it's easy to lose cool when someone repeatedly lies, sock puppets, vandalizes, makes ad hominem attacks. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Hoaxes. If you can trick enough people outside Wikipedia then it might deserve an article describing the hoax as a hoax, or a mention at List of Hoaxes. --Quarl 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax bordering on patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hedley 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a simple google search gives out quite a few sources of it's authenticity. All the article needs is a major cleanup. if Wonder Showzen gets an article, why shouldn't this old, similar, show? --ThrashedParanoid 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  Delete - didn't read the entire AfD entry, but now its pretty obvious that this article deserves deletion.--ThrashedParanoid 21:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What sources of authenticity? The article creator already admitted to it being a hoax. --Quarl 06:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While an interesting concept - it isn't for Wikipedia content. --Maxfield2003
  • Comment Ok. I agree - delete. I see that the general consensus is that this article doesn't fit here. My bad for having fun.--Lostheadfactory69.107.136.224
    • Reply I welcome the delete of both this article and this debate. I don't think either are good examples of Wikipedia at its finest. -- Maxfield2003 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Metacomment. Please, let's all stay cool (advice to everyone including myself). Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. I have taken the liberty of removing personal attacks -- comments whose classification as personal attack is controversial, but anyhow they are comments that the subjects of the comments wish not to see, and are unneccessary. Please both sides, stop reverting the removal of personal attacks. I hope it is obvious that the consensus is to delete this article, so we can close this discussion and avoid further fighting. --Quarl 21:51, 28 December 2005 (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.