Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton 95
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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hamilton 95
A usenet joke/hoax - probably not notable enough for inclusion Rd232 talk 10:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it's an admitted hoax on its own page, and while I'd normally say mark it as part of Category:Hoaxes and be done with it, it just perpetuates the hoax without explaining it. Google turns about about 50ish relevant links, and Google Groups comes up with a few hundred from Usenet. I don't really think this is notable, but even if it were, I doubt anyone would turn up to clean up the article and put it on the level of other articles about hoaxes. Sadly, I think this one's got to go.--FreelanceWizard 10:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)- As per the discussion below, I'm changing my vote to keep, but add to cleanup or requests for expansion so it can be expanded by someone knowledgeable in the subject. --FreelanceWizard 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It was a Hoax- In 1995. The first line of the article admits that it's not real. The problem with source material is that it's a part of Internet History (And trolling, admittedly), from 1995 ;) Frankly, I'm surprised ANY webpages mentioning it are still running. Considering the number of different groups that discussed it shows that it wasn't strictly an in-joke on one usnet group. comp.os.msdos.misc,alt.folklore.computers,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system,rec.games.mud.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,comp.lang.c,alt.sports.hockey.nhl.wash-capitals,alt.winsock I don't agree that deletion is the right choice in this case. E1ven 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Even if it is notable, that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work like other hoax pages that describe the hoax, its history, its perpetuators, and the like. The article at the moment is quite non-encyclopedic. If someone were to step up and agree to clean it up to bring it to the level of quality of the articles in Category:Hoaxes, I'd say keep it, sure -- but I somehow don't think anyone's going to do that, given how little eyeballing the page has gotten so far. Will anyone step forth and agree to save this article? --FreelanceWizard 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Fair. The article was badly written. I did a re-write; It's not much better, but I think it's good enough. Agreed? --E1ven 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think it should be put on cleanup or requests for expansion now so it can get some further love, but I think it passes VfD muster for the time being. I've changed my vote above. I'm curious why someone put unreferenced on it, though... the external links are the sources, are they not? *boggles* I'm still not entirely convinced about its notability, but this article passes my personal "researcher of something one level removed" test, so I'm fine with it staying around. --FreelanceWizard 22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Fair. The article was badly written. I did a re-write; It's not much better, but I think it's good enough. Agreed? --E1ven 19:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Even if it is notable, that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work like other hoax pages that describe the hoax, its history, its perpetuators, and the like. The article at the moment is quite non-encyclopedic. If someone were to step up and agree to clean it up to bring it to the level of quality of the articles in Category:Hoaxes, I'd say keep it, sure -- but I somehow don't think anyone's going to do that, given how little eyeballing the page has gotten so far. Will anyone step forth and agree to save this article? --FreelanceWizard 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - notable hoax (and the article acknowledges that it was). 23skidoo 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - notable meme in its time. Haikupoet 06:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I plead guilty. I originally marked the article for speedy deletion, being under an impression that the article was a (self-admitted) hoax. Now it is clear that it is an article about, a fairly notable hoax, so keep. - Mike Rosoft 15:03, 7 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.
