Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venomous Duck

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 was delete. Sr13 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venomous Duck

Venomous Duck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fairly obvious hoax page, accompanying image appears to be some sort of editing (whatever the term is). I strongly doubt that there is any truth to this. DoomsDay349 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Enough said. --Whstchy 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no speedy delete criteria for hoaxes (or so I was last told). Which is why I had to go through these channels. DoomsDay349 22:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What about WP:CSD#G1? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I mean get rid of it now, that's all.--Whstchy 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to seem like I'm combating myself on the deletion, but..."Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." DoomsDay349 23:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not propose a CSD for hoaxes?--Whstchy 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Likely it's been done before, if I recall correctly it's on the account that it is always questionable as to whether it is a hoax. Thus AFD (or prod, maybe, but this user has objected a couple times, so...) is the better route. Insofar as my knowledge goes. DoomsDay349 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article as unsourced and externally unverifiable. Article appears to be half about a 'monster' that terrorises Pensylvania (hoax), and half about how the duck doesn't exist but is a metaphot for sexually transmitted diseases (attempt to use Wikipedia to create slang). Unfortunately, this will have to be a standard-speed delete, as the article does not meet CSD G1 (although I am quite partial to snowcones). -- saberwyn 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Will the closing admin please also murder the image if this article is deleted? -- saberwyn 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article as unsourced and gibberish. Venomous duck on a web search has many hits and different meanings, including this one (venereal disease slang) but hardly seems encyclopedic considering the vastly different meanings applied to the euphemism. If someone wants to re-create the article in a serious fashion attempting to cite all the different possible interpretations of the phrase, they can, though I doubt if anyone will.Markisgreen 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. JJL 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears the author admits it to being fake. --Whstchy 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One of those chased me around a park the other day. Well, it didn't actually have the big sharp pointy teeth or anything, but they were similar... Delete as hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as hoax. -=Elfin=-341 02:14, 24 May 2007 (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.