Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smeetfrog Park

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. SushiGeek 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smeetfrog Park

There is no Smeetfrog Park. The Smeet Frog does not exist--it's a hoax some people are trying to establish in Ypsilanti, Michigan. See here, and here for info on the project. · rodii · 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• The article is poorly written and I was initially inclined to delete as well. However, this appears to have established itself as a something of minor phenomena within the community. There was a sign for Smeetfrog Park [1], which was even mentioned as an object lesson for teaching children in the Library of Michigan magazine Access [2] The local Dreamland Theater also puts on puppet productions themed around the fictitious frog.[3][4]. And, perhps the most significant factor for a hops lover like me, it provides name for a local microbrew ale [5]. I dunno if it really merits a separate article though. Deleteas discussed below, the article as it is is patent nonsense and concerns only one incident in a hoax. Even if kept it would need to be drastically rewritten. Some mention of it could made in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Still not notable. Delete. -- Kicking222 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notable or not, there is no such park. If you think that the hoax is notable, as opposed to the nonexistent park, then we could have an article called "Smeetfrog Park Hoax," but just writing that brings home to me how foolish the idea is. And I have to note that all of Bkonrad's cites except for the first one aren't about the nonexistent park, they're about the nonexistent frog. · rodii · 03:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree the park sign was a part of the hoax and the park is not called Smeetfrog Park. I'm not especially keen on keeping the article, like I said it is very poorly written and in fact most all of the info appear to be BS. I nearly prodded it when I first came upon it, but then settled for tagging it as unsourced. When the user came back with a rather dubious source, I looked into a little more and found the Dream Theater productions, with quite a few related publicity links in area newspapers, the Access magazine article, and the beer, which are about the fictitious frog rather than the park. So, I'll shed no tears if this is deleted in its entirety. But it does seem enough of a curiousity that it might warrant at least a mention in the Ypsilanti article. older ≠ wiser 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article, but consider mentioning the Smeet Frog hoax in the Ypsilanti, Michigan article as per older ≠ wiser. -- Avenue 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per older/wiser's linkage. Something fictitious with that much attention deserves its own article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I always hate it when people argue and argue and argue in their AfDs, but I don't feel as if I've been clear, so I'll try again--forgive me for pushing. One of those links is about the park, a photograph of a homemade sign by one of the people (who I like a lot--this isn't a vendetta, it's an argument about whether information in Wikipedia whould be true) pushing the hoax. All the other links are about the nonexistent frog--this is an article about a nonexistent park. And a non-notable one as well: try this google search: smeetfrog.park--it turns up one hit (a googlewhack!). Mentioning it in the Ypsi article makes sense, but even there it has to be discussed as a hoax. Wikipedia can't be allowed to be used to propagate hoaxes without calling all the info here into doubt. · rodii · 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that you don't have a good point as to it being a hoax or not, but there's reason to keep the article as an article about the hoax and surrounding the situation.--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If I could offer a guideline here, see WP:HOAX, especially the section on "Hoaxes vs. Articles about Hoaxes". Maybe that will help clarify the issue. My interpretation is that for this article to be kept, it should pass the notability criterion and then be rewritten to be clearly about the hoax, not the nonexistent bridge. If AfD thinks it's notable, so be it (though I disagree, obviously), then it's rewriting time; I can live with that. · rodii · 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, this article should go. It is nonsense. If there is to be a separate article about the hoax though, it should be at Smeet frog, as the park sign was only one incident in the hoax. But personally, I don't think it has reached a point where it really needs it's own article yet. I think a brief mention of it in the Ypsi article would suffice. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 22 April 2006 (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.