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. While I nominated this and probably shouldn't be closing it as well, I will, based on the discussion and this message left on my talk page. It is obvious the students that created it are getting into trouble at their school and I feel like helping them out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class even if they are well written. Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a hoax, however amusing or well-written it might be. Fabricationary 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fabricationary. wikipediatrix 16:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to vandalism and reversion the following comments were accidently taken out. (That should have said the following two comments). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Noooooo please just leave it up for a week, or forever. but if anything, a week, because it is very popular among the people who created it and their friends, and it's giving Wikipedia many visitors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk •

contribs) 15:15, 8 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Ezeu 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it even admits to being something made up in school one day. —Whouk (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Giving Wikipedia many visitors"? Delete unless this article is single-handedly responsible for increasing Wikipedia's traffic by, say, more than 1%. TheProject 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncyclopedia Mandarin Tiger Well, it's on Uncyclopedia now. At least they make no pretensions over the legitimacy of their articles. Wikipedia will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate source, precisely becuase of the reason that people can edit whatever they want, such as that incident with the Kennedy Assassination last year. To all of those getting your panties in a twist over a single article of just a few hundred kilobytes on the website - is Wikipedia really being harmed that much over a few lines of text about tigers? --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Conway --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Chris Conway was mentioned in the article as a "known tiger expert". If it's not clear enough, this comment should not be given any weight since this person is most likely the (or one of the) authors or authors' friends.
• Why do people care so much that it's on the site? Save unless you care enough to hurt high school kids, and rob them of a great and funny thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2006.

• Save Encyclopedia- a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. As long as the data is appropriate for all ages, it should be fine. After looking through your “deletion policies,” I have found nothing on “Mandarin Tigers” that has violated these rules. If you could be so kind to try and point them out. So far the only thing I have seen on this deletion entry is: “Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class.” Shows how well you examine things before deletion. Show me a quote where you thought that this creature was “made up in class.” Also, how do you think most scientific theories were created? Didn’t Einstein create his 4 theories while working at a patent office? And the very internet that this site depends on? Some person even went so far as to call it a hoax. I’ll just speculate that none of you have even seen Bergen, so I will rest my case that you have no idea what you are talking about.

1. Primary (original) research- The Tiger wasn’t my idea, but I did research it. 2. Original inventions- Its not my invention. 3. Critical reviews- The entry is kept strictly unbiased. 4. 5. and 6. have nothing to do with the Mandarin Tiger entry One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers- It is a fact that tigers appear at Bergen Catholic, and many people are interested in the subject. Who is a more reputable publisher then an eyewitness to every single event? A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon- Mandarin Tiger spawning are not only a piece of history for Bergen Catholic, but is a social and natural phenomenon as well. One common temptation for young editors is the urge to share new phrases, fashions, or ideas that they or their friends have invented. Writing an article on Wikipedia might seem like a great way to do this -- after all, if you enjoy this new fad, won't other people appreciate it too?- Mandarin tigers are not a fad. The entry on them does not explain how to create one in great detail, and only is listed in order to give some background. We are not encouraging people to create them, just explaining the history.

Oh and look again Hetar, I only compared them in the matter of creation if anything. Hu-hu-hook-edd on Phuhonics just isn't cutting it with you huh?AA Savage 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not funny enough for BJAODN. If you seriously want policies that this violates, check out, Wikipedia: Not a publisher of original thought, WP:V and WP:RS. Oh, and WP:NFT too. Comparing this article to one of Einsteins theories is laughable. --Hetar 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Save: While the action in class was a joke, it actully happened, and this recounts the past months at school, and describes the joke itself. The page itself is not a joke, simply a recounting of something that has influenced the school. This can and may be used as a source for projects and power points describing the "Bergen Catholic Culture" If need be, we can create a page about the school's culture (Its own slang dialect, running 'jokes', our own holidays and what now and the Manderin Tiger can be a sub article of that. CJRogers8 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.242.141 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2006.

Save if you want this deleted, prove to me how it violates the rules. and once you say something like "its not real" prove to me that it isnt real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 May 2006.

This page is based on a factual account of an actual witness of the said "mandarin tiger" therefore in accordance with New Jersey law if this page is taken away it will be taken as a matter of harrasment towards the said "witness" and therefore the persons at fault for the deletion will be sued for the harrasment due to the deletion of the page and there by questioning and insulting te integrity and powers of observation of the said "witness" of the said "mandarin tiger". -Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

keep the page, this is not original it is fact it is a scientific discovery that must be spread throughout the world for all to know.-Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

However, as long as this page remains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooka the page of the mandarin tiger cannot be deleted. Otherwise Leprauchauns, aliens, pookas, unicorns or any other mythical creature with no known tangible evidence of existance MUST BE DELETED FROM THIS SITE.-Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius

THe following must be deleted if this page is deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2006.

Strong Emphatic Delete unnotable neologism--Nick Y. 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than debateable that if a unicorn no matter of its fame, being a mystical creature conjured in the imagination of another...a "original idea" if you will which falls under the policy of deletion as do all the topics that i gave the links to, that a mandarin tiger is a myth just the same which becasue of all in favors of deletions opinion of the topic it is in violation of the deletion policy. I propose that though this (mandarin tiger) is a myth,, your unicorns and leprechauns are just the same, and so in since the only difference between them is that you wish to delete our myth and keep another, and that ours is not as widespread in fame but then again the only way for the Mandarin Tiger to gain the reputation of the unicorn it must be spread to the public through sites such as this as a historical myth of a real place: Bergen Catholic High School case closed -Peter Coyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2006.

• Delete per WP:NFT. Unlike unicorns, leprechauns, elves, wizards, warlocks, and dragons, Mandarin tigers are not famous parts of folklore, since they were just made up last week. Anyone who votes "keep" on this is strongly advised to read WP:NFT several times until they understand it. --Metropolitan90 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I've read your "WP:NFT" and I'm pretty sure that I already proved the Mandarin Tiger entry worthy of keeping its page. Or did you just miss that? /sarcasm AA Savage 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaveAll those creatures are the same thing a creation from someones mind, except that they are more famous, so tell me how many people to know about a mandarin tiger does it take to get it to the level of fame needed to become a true myth? I am saying this: If this page is deleted becasue this is considered made up then the pages i listed above must be deleted becasue no matter how famouse they are they are a figment of someones immagination, unless anyone who calls for the deletion of this page can preovide more tangible evidence for the existance of a unicorn than we have for the existance of teh mandarin tiger.-Peter COyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. And yes, it will be up for one week. Grandmasterka 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save My argument is right and whoever put up that warning at the top knows it, has nothing to say, and therefore resorts to something stupid like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 May 2006.

Save

THIS DOESNT SAY IT WAS MADE UP IN SCHOOL ONE DAY!!! for the 13th time or something. And Peter Coyne, the IP adress guy, who also helped create the Mandarin Tiger, is right. i back that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) .

As the author of this, let me say that I'm not ballot stuffing. People want this to continue and it's not harming Wikipedia anyway. It's not as though this site will ever be accepted as an academic source. --Chris Conway 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Someone please tell me, why do you care so much? who cares if a Mandarin Tiger article is here? and why do you care? are you afraid that people are going to think that they're real? well they are! and if you dont think they are, prove to me that they aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 May 2006.

Delete - It's a well-written and amusing hoax article. It would be perfect for a web page, but ultimately does not belong here on wiki. Whpq 16:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - It's not a hoax! it's a real thing! and if you dont believe that, prove that it's fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 May 2006.

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for pathetic little inside jokes. And they did a study that showed that Wikipedia is more accurate that Encyclopedia Britannica and other traditional encyclopedias because there are volunteer fact-checkers who make sure that everything is legit. But your stupid prank wastes their time. CClio333 17:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save "Pathetic little inside jokes?" You know what's a joke? You and your argument with no facts to back it up. How would you seriously expect anyone to believe your little "study" on Wikipedia? Other encyclopedias don't need you volunteers because they can't be changed. "Volunteer Fact-checkers?" Did you think of that clever title all by yourself? I hope you do realize that anyone with the mentality of a five-year-old could run this site. My "prank" wastes their time? Anyone who thinks being a "volunteer fact-checker" is something cool to do, they obviously have way too much time already. As for it being a prank, everyone has still failed to prove it so. Its interesting how you all leave a comment and then run away from the computer so that you don't see how much you are ripped apart in these entries. WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THE WHOLE PAGE, AND THEN COMMENT. Or is even that out of your aptitude for reading? And if you think one organized tiger page is too much for Wiki to handle, try a thousand angry students with all the time they want during school to paste little Mandarins into every single Wiki article. Your blocks are too easy to skirt anyway, so don't think you are protected. AA Savage 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this please it is pretty fake Yuckfoo 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You cant prove that it's fake. Stop saying that it's fake. DanBC08 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia articles should be verifiable. The onus is on the article to prove that it's not. —Whouk (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden of evidence falls on those who wish an edit to remain. And besides, nobody is buying this. Grandmasterka 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an only-slightly-amusing hoax. Guinnog 19:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the study that showed that Wikipedia is legitimate is a real study. It was in a lot of magazines, for example: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/online-encyclopedias-put-to-the-test/2005/12/14/1134500913345.html. The "Mandarin Tiger" is not an actual creature. I am basing this assertion on the fact that there is no record of it existing anywhere. By nothing I mean no scientific studies, no captured specimins, no published papers, etc. It is your job to prove that this creature is real, not the job of the fact checkers to prove that it isn't. I am willing to believe that the Mandarin Tiger is an idea that is important to your high school. But this is too small a group to support its inclusion as an entry on Wikipedia. Also, saying that being a fact-checker is a waste of time is very judgmental of you. What do you do with your free time that is so important? CClio333 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See, now you go and waste my time. If you read the above, then you would realize that the "Mandarin tigers aren't real argument" has already been tried by you Wiki people, and destroyed. Once you delete all the other mystical creatures entries, then you can come back. Again, it is not a hoax, as we all have said before, it is a historical document, that is updated as required. Heh, what do I do? Hmm. . . . *Deepbreath* I practice three different kinds of Martial Arts everyday; I am an excellent archer, and skilled as a hunter as the best; I'm an expert tracker, and can survive in almost any condition known to man; Not only do I fence, but I am also trying to make a team at my school, and I pratice with real swords also; I have a fair amount of accuracy with throwing knives, and can easily attack up close with one; Ot of a thousand, I have rarely lost a fight; During the winter, I ski every other day, and went to Nationals 2 years ago, and invited every year, but didn't go; On a lower tone, I'm an avid reader, mainly fantasy, science and history; I play video games and the like, yet still have enough time in the day to beat the hell out of kids like you who fool themselves everyday by thinking they amount to something. AA Savage 20:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It isn't that they are fictional. As I said, it is because it is not a fictional creature believed in by a large enough group. Dragons, unicorns, etc., have been a part of world cultures for thousands of years. Even the Flying Spagetti Monster has thousands of people who use it as a cultural reference. Look at that website if you want something to model yours on - they do not claim that the FSM is real, only that it has relevance to a large segment of society. They explain exactly what the idea behind it is and link to a large amount of outside sources that have referred to it. But the Mandarin Tiger still doesn't qualify because is only relevant to a handful of people and therefore not important enough to merit an entry. I agree with the person above who suggested it as a subcategory on your high school page. But your argument that because there are other fictional creatures on the site you can make up whatever you want is not a valid argument.CClio333 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, see WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Tsk Tsk Tsk. How many contradictions can one man possible make? "The "Mandarin Tiger" is not an actual creature. I am basing this assertion on the fact that there is no record of it existing anywhere. By nothing I mean no scientific studies, no captured specimins, no published papers, etc. It is your job to prove that this creature is real, not the job of the fact checkers to prove that it isn't." Well then you can prove the unicorns are real. "As I said, it is because it is not a fictional creature believed in by a large enough group." Stop changing your mind, it doesn't help your argument. How is it not important enough? Last time I checked, there wasn't a restriction on how many people had to know about it. Don't make up rules. Also, if you don't consider an entire school, then how many people should have to know about this. And as for your website, all I found was some statistics that did not prove your argument, and some jokes aimed at Wiki. "almost as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least when it comes to science." First of all, wasn't your statement "And they did a study that showed that Wikipedia is more accurate that Encyclopedia Britannica." Not more, but less. And take a look at that last part of the Magazine quote: "at least when it comes to science." Why would it be science? Whats wrong with histo. . . . Oh Yeah! that's right . . . . Wikipedia doesn't like Mr. Seigenthaler. Where were your "Volunteer Fact-checkers" then? My counter-point, not argument, was that you can't exclude certain animals, because they are more recent. Once again, the Mandarin Tiger is a historcal entry, not a fictional hoax. Everything on that entry is true. And adding things to the Bergen Catholic entry never worked, everything tried has been deleted. Believe me when I say that one Mandarin Tiger page isn't a problem, compared to thousands all over the entire site. Scroll up BJAODN. I have already told you why my entry doesn't break these rules. How do you all edit pages, if you don't know the first thing about reading. Here's a tip: start from the top and go down. That way you won't miss as much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AA Savage (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 May 2006.

• Delete I personally think WP:NFT could singlehandedly crush this page. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering if you would actually read the article. You are absolutely right, the article only deals with the scientific articles of Wikipedia. But the goal of the people who treat Wikipedia seriously is to make it as accurate as possible in ALL areas. That is not an unreasonable goal because there are sites like Urban Dictionary for people who just want to have fun. It is unreasonable and immature for you to argue that because other people vandalize (and get caught) your site should be allowed to stay. Also, I don't think you understand the difference between the mythical creatures articles on Wikipedia and the mandarin tiger article. Regarding the unicorn article as an example - the unicorn article does not refer to it as a real creature. It refers to it as a "legendary creature" and does not use the definate language that is used in the mandarin tiger article. Unicorn horns are "said to" have healing powers, but your mandarin tigers "can" fly and become invisible. It seems like a minor thing but changes the whole tone from one of scientific skepticism to baseless assertions. Maybe if you phrased things that way on the school article people would stop taking them down, but I looked through the page's history and didn't see the attempts that you were talking about. CClio333 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It states there: "School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia."

The Mandarin Tiger can be considered a school craze, because our school is crazing about it. So basically, i or one of my colleagues will write an academic paper, and then the Mandarin Tiger page shall be forced to stay, according to the WP:NFT guidelines.

If the paper is published in a respected journal or widely-read book, yes that would probably do it. Guinnog 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right... We'll take it then. Grandmasterka 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I say so myself, I persoanlly think that Wikipedia is extremly corrupt and bias towards what they allow on their website. You guys are very hypocritical when you allow unicorns and such to be on the site yet you exclude the Mandarin Tigers. Also, i would like to ask a few questions: Are livestrong bands a school carze, fad, and a fashion? Yes they in fact are considering I walk around the halls at school and about one in three kids has one. On this note, has there been scientific reaserch, a book, or an academic paper published on a livestrong bad? No, there has not. So why should it be allowed on Wikipedia. Oh and... if anyone thinks that livestrong bands are legitimatly on this site because Nike has written numerous magazine articles on it, then whats stopping Nike from writing any old article to be posted on Wikipedia. What I am saying is: Wikipedia says that it wants to obtain the sum of all human knowledge when in fact a "Mandarin Tiger" is part of the sum of all human knowledge. I think you should change that to "the sum of only a select few 'Fact-checkers' knowledge", which in my opinion, is not much at all. ;) 24.56.143.101 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris, Thaureaux (Long live the Mandarin Tigers!)[reply]

The livestrong band was widely published in verifiable sources. This exists in only one high school. We are trying to have a credible and reliable encyclopedia, and allowing a craze that exists in only one school to be here does little towards that end. Grandmasterka 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) , I'm leaving this discussion, as many people here refuse to be convinced no matter what reason we provide. I also suspect there may be some trolling going on. Grandmasterka 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Check and Mate. "But the goal of the people who treat Wikipedia seriously is to make it as accurate as possible in ALL areas." Thanks, I believe that Mandarin Tigers fall under the category of "ALL areas." Here is something for you: www.reading-tutors.com Try that for a month or two then come back here. How and where did you find anything remotely close to "It is unreasonable and immature for you to argue that because other people vandalize (and get caught) your site should be allowed to stay." in my statements? The only thing I ever said about vandalism, was that in the magazine article you gave me, there were jokes played on Wiki. Anything else you get from that sentence means that you have some sort of hallucinatory disorder. I see what you mean with the sentence structure, which I fixed, however, many people edit that page, so I lose track of what the original entry was like. That's what you fact-checkers are for right? You should make sure it stays in the proper context, and if it isn't then change it. As for the school article, it has been tried to add a Culture section, but to no avail. In conclusion, quit pointedly skipping over some of my points, and only answering the ones you can. It doesn't say much for your comprehensive skills. And for you "Grandmaster" what material were livestrong bands published in? A shopping catalogue? "does little towards that end." but it does do something. "as many people here refuse to be convinced no matter what reason we provide." HA-HA Reason? you mean you and your Wiki buddies going "l00k t3h WP:NFT!!! t3h 5k00l cr4z3!!!" Meanwhile we actually respond to this, and then you skip right merrily over it, and put up warnings for people not to enter their thoughts, because YOU ARE BEING SHREDDED!! AA Savage 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address some points that haven't been explained over-and-over on this page, I comment. Don't compare the livestrong phenomenon to your isolated joke about the Mandarin Tiger. Shopping catalog? No, we have references from six sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Your Mandarin Tiger has zero. You seem to assert that WP:NFT doesn't apply for some reason. Well, NFT is part of a policy, not a little game we play to keep kids from Oradel from vandalising the site. You say YOU ARE BEING SHREDDED!!. Hate to break it to you—you're not doing anything revolutionary. Seems like you're keeping this up to rebel. To you, this is a valiant rebellion against the Wikipeida empire. To the people who want to delete your page, it's just an everyday AFD. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why wasn't this speedied as a hoax? --maru (talk) contribs 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because hoax is not a speedy. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria, if it was I would have deleted it right away. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. Maybe move to BJAODN. The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SAVE- this country is based on the right of free speech. As long as this article is not harrassing or maliciously criticizing someone, it should be left up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.174.227 (talk • contribs)
• Comment For those wishing to keep the article please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save - Everyone opposed to this article keeps dodging the fact that there are other made up characters that are on Wiki. And you claim that they are there because they have a lot more people that believe in them. BIG DEAL, more people will catch on to the Mandarin Tiger, just like they did for the first "warlock" or whatever. The warlock had to start somewhere, and the Mandarin Tiger has to start here. DanBC08 13:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Right! Warlock started as an idea; so does Mandarin Tiger. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so Mandarin Tiger can't start here. Seriously, though, if Mandarin Tiger does get published in a reputable publication, Wikipedians will gather to make an article about the glory that it is. But until then, we just can't have it. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 13:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And people think this is stupid .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster 198.143.64.82 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Thaureaux[reply]

• Strong Delete as a hoax, WP:NFT and a vandal magnet. Gwernol 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, all of the above and nonnotable! NawlinWiki 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save- Wikipedia contains articles of made up creatures within movies, videogames, and books. The "Mandarin Tiger" article is no different.

But not things made up in school one day, as has been explained above. Guinnog 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Save': The mandarin tiger is not a hoax. You cannot say that simply because you've never heard of it before. True it is a made up creature but there is a myth of a mandarin tiger Bergen Catholic. Let me just say this. How do you think we know about the cultures of the few still uncivilized groups of natives and tribes left in the world? (and by uncivilized i just mean they are untouched by modern society) People go out and study them. And that is just what we are doing with the myth of the mandarin tiger. Maybe it isnt real but all we are doing is studying the myth and recording it for posterity. You say that not enough people belive in it, well how about a school of almost a thousand, when those tribes i said earlier only had 1 or 2 people studying them? The only way more people will know about those tribes or the mandarin tiger is if it is allowed to be recorded where people see it. Zyrm (Suffrage note: user's first post. —Whouk (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete. My 6 year old German cousin knows what dragons, leprechauns and unicorns are. No one in Texas has heard of a Mandarin Tiger. It has no place on Wikipedia. As sure as I am of that, I know the other four people clamoring for a "save" are equally steadfast. But seriously, deletedeletedelete. And if you and your friends can get this written in a legitimate academic paper, like real scientists do, you won't even have to worry about rewriting the article - surely more people would be eager to do it for you. Bkessler23 02:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete per nom. It's nice to see so many new users participating actively at AfD :)) Joe 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Clearly vandalism/hoax. Royalbroil 05:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, wikipedia is such a joke. any1 can just post anything on here. wikipedia sucks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.223.198 (talk • contribs)
  • That's kind of the point :-) —Whouk (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an originator of the page - just delete it. The joke's over. Delete the page as quick as possible. It's done.

Speedy Delete I withdraw my statements made before and now move for the deletion of this site.

• Delete Google shows that there are a few pages on the web with these keywords, but they're all irrelavent. IE: They're all oriental restaurants or related to the film Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Beno1000 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Anyone can help get this page deleted, please do, because it is causing big problems at a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.38.126 (talk • contribs)

Heh, I'm pleased it is. Ever heard of Karma? But cheer up, chipmunk, for it almost certainly will be deleted soon. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.