Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Bearatross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 and BJAODN Ral315 22:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Bearatross
Delete. Joke article. Pretty funny stuff, though. To the page's author: might I suggest Uncyclopedia as a creative outlet? android79 01:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I am one of the people studing the bearatrosses. I and a number of friends have seen a bearatoss, we where not drunk/stoned/high or anytthing of the like. — (Unsigned comment by B0bvila; user's 1st edit.)
- I believe that the article makes perfectly clear that some believe that the bearatross is completely ficticious. This is similar to the situation with Bigfoot or even Mythology. Thus, in my humble opinion I do not believe that the article should be deleted. --Doomtiki 02:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Doomtiki makes a very valid point in that just because something seems rediculous it is not necesarily unencyclopedic. For example, consider the flying spaghetti monster or even the theories of Archimedes Plutonium.--Pyroevanes 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the joke has gone far enough. Nandesuka 03:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: A great big thank you to all those who voted to keep the spaghetti monster: it's now precedent for keeping other hoaxes. (sigh) Hoaxes are hoaxes, and they're not encyclopedic articles. Perhaps Uncyclopedia is for them. Geogre 03:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a hoax. It's a real parody that was invented to make a point with the Kansas State Board of Education. android79 03:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree on your stated principle, Geogre. Is spontaneous generation not an encyclopedic topic because we now know it to be a false idea? Very well, then; why should a hoax be a less encyclopedic topic just because some people knew the whole time (because they were perpetrating it) that it is was false? However, this particular article isn't even a hoax, IMHO, because a hoax is intended to fool people, and this looks intended just to amuse. To Unencyclopedia with it, and Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unlike bigfoot, this article is a joke (at least it should be to a reasonable person). -- Kjkolb 05:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Funny, sweet crackers! --maclean25 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I saw a Bear-o-dross once, but I was drunk/stoned/high and everything of the like. Alf melmac 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or *Keep, whatever--just don't let it near my car. What next, an article on flying purple people eaters? The_Iconoclast 22:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, joke article (which is speediable as Wikipedia:Vandalism in such blatant cases as this: it's way beyond a hoax). It's not in the realm of bigfoot or mythology nor even Hufu. It's just a joke. -Splash 22:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Can we just speedy this foolishness now? (The photo did crack me up, I have to admit.) Bearcat 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN, and the picture must be kept. Proto t c 13:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - it's already on BJAODN. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable, hoax, an uncyclopedia topic.--Knucmo2 12:01, 9 September 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.