Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohobans

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hohobans

Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment; Well, "Kaput and Zosky" does serve up a fair amount (roughly 6k) of hits. Question is of course if it is a hoax or not. If not, I would vote keep based on the apparent popularity of the cartoon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Celsius (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-22 02:33:04
• I got much the same thing, but nothing that combined with "Hohobans." "Kaput and Zosky" are all over the place and there's a fair-sized article here as well. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only hit for "Kaput and Zosky" hohobans is VfU. Niteowlneils 03:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not unverifiable, just as-yet unverified. It seems unlikely to me that a French cartoon would have such odd names (h is aspirated in French so I expect thathoho signifies a rather rare sound). I have noted the basic facts on the talk page of Kaput and Zösky so no factual information would be lost if this article were deleted. --05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Dottore So 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no Google or Yahoo search hits for Hohobans, and Hohoban hits don't have anything to do with this. Zoe 05:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page contains claims about "Hohobans." The claims are unfortunately unreferenced. There is no actual verification of the existence of the Hohoban, much less any verificatory source that suggests notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP accepts stubs, but these have guidelines; WP is under no obligation to accept unreferenced, unverified claims, especially those which are in all likelihood hoaxes. Should a claim of authenticity be made via Tony Sidaway's [1] or Lucky's [2] posts on the related Talk pages, my vote to delete shall remain almost certainly unchanged; simply because something purpotedly exists should not by any means be taken to suggest it automatically deserves mention in an encyclopedia. That requires notability, as explained in WP:N and WP:V. Absent that standard, there is no basis for an encyclopedic article on the subject.—Encephalon | ^ζ  06:43:32, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  • Wow, Encephalon, that should be added to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy pages. Zoe 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're too kind, Zoe. In a way, I don't think anything needs to be added. It's already there.—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:58:33, 2005-08-23 (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.