Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crazy Chimp
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 speedied by Ingoolemo Ingoolemo talk 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Crazy Chimp
Original research/hoax. Google turns up 41 mostly unrelated hits. Vandalism. Blackcap | talk 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete
complete nonsense.get rid of it.--Alhutch 22:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Still speedy, but under category G3 per Capitalistroadster.--Alhutch 03:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN - patent nonsense. --Aurochs
- While this should be deleted, it is not patent nonsense, which is a very stringent category here. It is hard to read, but it is coherent, sensical, and legible, and thus does not meet WP:PN. I share your sentiments, though. Blackcap | talk 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- How is "An imaginary chimp turned into crazy bouncy balls, when we bought one at jakes pizza" sensical or coherent by any definition of the words? --Aurochs
- It's completely coherent. I can understand perfectly what's being said, which is that a chimp, which he had, turned into balls. He had bought the chimp at jakes pizza. The fact that the content isn't paticularly intelligent doesn't make it patent nonsense, as we define it. On WP, patent nonsense is either utterly impossible to understand content (such as random keys being pressed, such as k,asdhjvbsdhb aldshbld lHDb lahdcblbi&&****) or "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." I can easily make sense out of this article. It is not confused or incoherent, but it violates WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and is possibly vandalism. I would like pages like this to be speediable, but currently, they are not. Essays must go on AfD. Blackcap | talk 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently, our interpretations of "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" are different. Oh, well. --Aurochs
- Yeah. That sentence really needs to be rewritten, it's far too open to interpretation. The only thing that helps quantify it is the semi-lengthy list of what patent nonsense isn't, which includes fictionary story material and incompetent/immature material. Blackcap | talk 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently, our interpretations of "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" are different. Oh, well. --Aurochs
- It's completely coherent. I can understand perfectly what's being said, which is that a chimp, which he had, turned into balls. He had bought the chimp at jakes pizza. The fact that the content isn't paticularly intelligent doesn't make it patent nonsense, as we define it. On WP, patent nonsense is either utterly impossible to understand content (such as random keys being pressed, such as k,asdhjvbsdhb aldshbld lHDb lahdcblbi&&****) or "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." I can easily make sense out of this article. It is not confused or incoherent, but it violates WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and is possibly vandalism. I would like pages like this to be speediable, but currently, they are not. Essays must go on AfD. Blackcap | talk 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- How is "An imaginary chimp turned into crazy bouncy balls, when we bought one at jakes pizza" sensical or coherent by any definition of the words? --Aurochs
- While this should be deleted, it is not patent nonsense, which is a very stringent category here. It is hard to read, but it is coherent, sensical, and legible, and thus does not meet WP:PN. I share your sentiments, though. Blackcap | talk 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as silly vandalism under category G3. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Part of this article is advertisement for a game and the rest is better forgotten. JoJan 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, CSD:G1. My interpretation of the second category for patent nonsense, "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" is the same as Auroch's, and this article definitely qualifies. MCB 22:19, 18 November 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.
