Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZAG

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. --Conti|✉ 03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZAG

Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, probably just a joke. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a hoax. Jaxl 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Unverifiable. The article helpfully tells us that the organization lacks any tangible existence. There's nothing to rewrite about, moreover. Although quite a few ZAG University departments exist, Zentrum für Angewandte Geowissenschaften and Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies aren't the English names that they are known by. Delete. Uncle G 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence such an organization actually exists. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax or is not noteworthy. The irony in the ZAG is pretty funny. DarthVader 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems more like a bad joke and unverifiable. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Original author here... perhaps it should be deleted: ZAG is indeed a joke. I guess the question is whether the joke is widespread enough to make note here. Or perhaps just the article tone is wrong. Much like TLA and GNU, ZAG is an amusing self referential joke on the tendancy to turn everything into an acronym. I guess calling it an organization is misleading... it's just that that is the form of the joke: someone complains about acronyms, and then the jokester asks if they'd like to join the association for "zero acronym growth", or ZAG. Ha ha ha. Well, that's the deal. If it should be deleted based on that, I won't argue. If it should be modified, that sounds good too. Thanks. 05:00, , 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just made an attempt to wikify and expand the page. It isn't a hoax, simply a joke that I believe deserves an explanation. -- Reinyday 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, is it a notable joke? How popular is it? There are no Google hits for "zero acronym growth", and I can't fathom why an English-language joke notable enough for an encyclopedia would not appear anywhere on the web. — Ливай | Ⓣ 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 00:31, July 13, 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.