Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gus Roberts

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gus Roberts

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "patent nonsense", but it doesn't fit the definition; it's perfectly understandable, but seems to be a bad hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete if it isn't patent nonsense, it's very close. Surely an article in which every single word is untrue counts as vandalism anyway. And if Gus Roberts is a real person, making him sound like some sort of crazy James Bond villian makes this an attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete bordering on patent nonsense, if it isn't that then it's a hoax article, and if it isn't even that then it would at least fall under original research. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C ----- 22:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Comment: WP:CSD clearly states that the patent nonsense criterion is "text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent (e.g. random characters)", which I interpret as meaning of the "fhghgfh" or "atomic radar is good yumyum" variety. This, however, is coherent and has meaning; the meaning just happens to be 100% fictional. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)}

^{You're absolutely right, but sometimes when something is (by Wikipedia terminology) a hoax (ie. complete fiction), in everyday language we'd habitually call it nonsense, which causes confusion sometimes. --TheMidnighters 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

• ^{Delete wtf? Someone's imagination? Nice new nickname for my cat, though: Mr. Fluffybottom. --Etacar11 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete slowly. Sorry, it asserts notability and is no nonsense. No other way. --Dmcdevit·t 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete as clear fiction or original research. Sounds like Dr Evil. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Crush by sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads. android79 01:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete and wonder how on Earth that got through the new CSD. -Splash 01:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Fer fuck's sake someone speedy this thing already. Obvious vandalism. I'd love to see someone embarass themselves by bringing it to VfU. -R. fiend 02:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete I originally nominated it for Speedy using the definition of nonsense: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head nor tail of it. I suppose a slow delete works too... just, er, slower. --Alan Au 04:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{This is an underused definition of patent nonsense; a lot of the time it is cited as having to be specifically unintelligible when the criterion is slightly broader than that. However, few are the articles which it iss impossible to make "head [n]or tail of" which are not also unintelligible; it also unclear, to me at least, how we are to interpret the vernacular phrasing. I wonder if this kind of article would be a good test-case: delete it right now on those grounds, deliberately take it to VfU on grounds that it is not patent nonsense and see what happens. Might be a WP:POINT, though. -Splash 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
    • ^{Obviously untrue claims like the one in this article could rightly be speedily deleted as vandalism, but many people are uncomfortable with this, for some reason. Usually it takes a bold admin to just come and wipe it out. (That would definitely be a WP:POINT, BTW. If this legitimately ended up at VfU after a speedy, well, that'd be rather amusing.) android79 04:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete but not speedy. This is obvious Fiction or Hoax, but not speedyable under the current CSD. I have no problem "making head or tail" of it. In fact if the firest sentance were changed to "In the james-bond-like novel Dr SoandSo the character Gus Roberts..." I'll bet it would have a consenssus to keep (assuming that such a novel existed). If this were speedy deleted unde the present rules I would be inclined to put it on VfU. The CSD should not be streached or bent, IMO. DES 14:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
  • ^{You say this is an obvious hoax – a joke article. Joke articles are categorized as vandalism. Vandalism is speediable under criterion A3. android79 14:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
    • ^{That is an interesting idea. But I don't see anything on the vandalism. page that says that a hoax is a type of vandalism, although it might be implied on the grounds that it is a bad-faith edit. However I would be opposed to making (or considering) a hoax as a reson for speedy deletion , because there ar too many false positives. i have seen several articles nominted for VfD listed as "hoax" where it turns out thet they are accurate but unusual. For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth Foulstar where someone incorrectly thought the page might be a hoax. Too many pages are inaccurately identified as hoaxes for this to be a safe reason for speedy deletion -- let them come to VfDF where several people can give vbiews, and if somehting is infact not a hoax, a citation will no doubt be provided. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
    • ^{That said, I would not object to a new reason for speedy deletion the specified using wikipedia to publish fiction, which i think might cover this case, but I don't think that A3 as currently written will cover that. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
    • ^{I think I will point discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion at this page so more people can consider with pages like this are or ought to be speedy candidates, with is really not relevant to whether thsi particular page shoulod eb dleted via the VfD process, as I trust it will. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
      • ^{From Wikipedia:Vandalism: Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense. That's what this is, aside from the "plausible" part. "Gus Roberts is known as the most dangerous person in the history of the world" is patently ridiculous, a far cry from the example you cite. android79 18:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)}
        • ^{I see your point, and I missed that phrase. I agree that this case is far more obvious that the one I cited, or than most hoaxes. A clear "joke" article probably does constitute vandalism, at least it is arguable. But I would not want that used on things labeled "hoaxes" for fear of the kind of situations i discuss above. I raised this point on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction, care to comment there? DES 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
      • ^{The thing is, unchecked fiction is frequently indistinguishable from a hoax, so it makes sense to put it before a greater number of eyes to determine the proper course of action. — Gwalla | Talk 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete using the big red "smite" button. — RJH 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}
• ^{Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:30, 27 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.}