Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Hands

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 21:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Hands

Unencyclopaedic, in my view. Lack of notability, no explanation for why this article is named "Mr Hands", no context on the person's real name, links to somewhat inappropriate material on bestiality, etc. Close to nonsense. Delete. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, no reason given for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, reason given now. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not encyclopaedic - verging on nonsense--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Junk --JAranda | watz sup 01:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD A7, G3. I tried that already, but it was reverted.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- (drini's page|☎) 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no persuasive reason given to delete. Kappa 02:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  "Unencyclopediac", "Verging on nonsense","Junk", and "Lack of notability" all seem fairly persausive to me...--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  If "unencyclopedic" is a description of the tone, it can be fixed. If it describes the topic, I disagree. I can understand it, and so could any reader, so I don't think it verges on nonsense. "Junk" is hardly an attempt at persuasion. "Lack of notability" seems like a funny criterion to apply to this hopefully unique event. Kappa 02:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  One guy dying because he had sex with a horse is "encyclopediac"?--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. Unfortunately it is part of the sum of human knowledge, as confirmed by the newspaper report. Kappa 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  Really? Well, it seems we won't agree on this, so I'll just let consensus decide. Everybody wins! Except for the subject of this artice...:)--Sean Jelly Baby? 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete though I'm sure bestiality videos are of interest to some folks, individual files are not an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Edit and keep Maybe it belongs among "web phenomena" or something similar. It's not exactly "encyclopedia-worthy", but it should be here to explain what it is to people so that they don't need to see the video. It's being called "the next goatse", so it's likely that it will be showing up in forums for years to come, there may as well be some background information on it somewhere legitimate so that people who are curious don't need to actually search for it on google and read every forum post filled with people saying "that's gross". The article doesn't have a lot of information in it, because it's fairly self-explanitory. It's a gross video of a sexual act resulting in death that is being posted around the internet as "shock humor". Not sure how to correctly sign my name here, I apologize. As for why it is different than the other floating porn videos, this one resulted in a death, which is at least newsworthy - original poster - 02:43:48 14 October 2005—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.233.102 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a very persuasive case to keep the article. If it is a phenomena, and it is talked about, then it IS noteworthy, and it SHOULD be referenced. However, I question the merit of "self-explanitory." The article should explain a secondary consensus and/or debate on the phenomena and provide references. Clearly, however, it is not original research, so I think this has potential to be saved. --Malecasta 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic. badly written article. Bwithh 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity? Yes, he wants everyone to know that he has sex with horses, from beyond the grave. ;-) -- Kjkolb 04:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything worthwhile into Zoophilia. Do not leave a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Revise The entry refuses to define itself. Perhaps a reporting on the sources listed and a merge with other material. There should be some definition of "Mr Hands," and some reporting on the secondary scholarship of issue. If no scholarship, then some attempt should be made to distinguish it from original research. If it's something that exists and is commented on by other people, then it should say what exists, what those comments are, THEN link to that commentary as reference. --Malecasta 04:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic at all and should be removed forthwith, respectfully disagreeing with Kappa's assertion that this can in any way be considered something worthy of inclusion based on an assertion of 'the sum of human knowledge.' Equine knowledge maybe... Dottore So 08:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You think wikipedia users should go without access to the fact that there is a recorded instance of a man dying from this kind of act? Kappa 11:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The act itself and the consequences could be a paragraph in Zoophilia without any real effort. This man is not notable on his own. Karmafist 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge either into Zoophilia or put a mention in Enumclaw, Washington where we already have some links about this case - maybe that section should be expanded with a little write-up of the case? flowersofnight 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. The term "Mr Hands" has no real relation to the incident in Enumclaw, Washington, in so much as I can determine. If someone wants to take the time to add the factual information of the Enumclaw, Washington incident into the Zoophilia based on news reports (I don't see anything salvageable in this article) that would be a useful endeavor. Keeping this article under this title though doesn't serve any purpose as the term Mr Hands appears to be neologistic in renference to the information in the article (barring the naming of the mpg file).--Isotope23 13:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The name "Mr. Hands" is the name the person in the video used online. He has a yahoo profile under the name "mrhands60" (warning: which contains adult material). --angrysquirrel 18:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. I don't suggest redirecting to zoophilia because someone might want to do an article sometime on the Mr. Bill character. 23skidoo 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is, Weak Delete if it ever rises above badvertising cruft. A man having sex with a horse might be notable as fluff on the local evening news, but random foolishness in general is not notable, and i'm inclined to believe that's what this is.Karmafist 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Ganymead 16:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, nn, vanity?--Gaff ^{talk 23:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)}
  • I rather hope that the ghosts of zoophiliac farmers aren't editing Wikipedia :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe so, but "Attack of the Zombie Hillbilly Horse-Boinking Encyclopedia Editors from Hell" would make a great horror movie title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and POV article about nn occurrence. MCB 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete not worth salvaging. any useful material about this incident can be added more easily elsewhere without using this article Mozzerati 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Zoophilia floortap 8:22, 20 October 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.