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 speedy delete as vandalism. The content of the article at the time the discussion was started only became continually more absurd, and it may be possible the entire article was an attempt at making fun of an individual the creators know. There was no serious attempt to discuss the article by its creators. Leebo ^T/C 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp Chapman

[edit]

Hoax article and contested prod. A Google search reveals nothing relevant to the mentioned information. It's pretty clearly not a real biography, but no criterion for speedy deletion appropriately covers it. Leebo ^T/C 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I commend your very careful interpretations of policy, but I don't think "contested prod" describes what just took place here. The original author removed the prod tags, did not address the concerns raised by the prod, and responded by adding a phrase to the article about the subject having a rare disease so that 15% of his bloodstream is composed of beef gravy. I think this pretty clearly falls under WP:CSD#G1. --Jaysweet 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fairly strict in my application of WP:CSD#G1. If you read the page on patent nonsense, hoax articles are not considered nonsense if they're coherent. Until a consensus exists to treat them as such, this is the only way allowed through policy. Leebo ^T/C 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that sentence was added by an anonymous user, and I removed it as unsourced negative information. I'm sure no one would bat an eye if I just deleted the article, but I'd rather follow policy. Leebo ^T/C 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I mean, you've got way more experience on Wikipedia than me, and you're an admin and all that, so I'll defer to your interpretation... but I'm not sure I'd consider a rant about "a serial killer... who is best known for almost being cast on Gilligan's island" to be "coherent." Just my opinion. Also note that the IP who just edited the talk page has also made implausible Chimp Chapman-related edits to Duane Chapman and Mark David Chapman, which were reverted. I think it's generous to call this a coherent hoax, but obviously it's your call.

In any case, my advocacy for speedy delete stands. Cheers! --Jaysweet 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced nonsense. A duck test leads me to believe the author and anonymous user are the same person. The author's contributions consist only of 4 edits to this article. The anon's contributions consist almost entirely of adding nonsense about Chimp Chapman to other articles over the past few days. I would argue that it would almost qualify for ((db-bio)) even if it wasn't patent nonsense. While the person would have led an interesting life, I'm not sure any of the claims made meet WP:BIO. --OnoremDil 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on the article talk page about the figurative killer whale made me giggle. Delete as utter fabrication. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It may not be a G1, but it's definitely an A7 (non-notable bio) and almost certainly a G3 (obvious hoaxes qualify as silly vandalism). Either way, do it now. Obvious hoax. Editor has been warned with ((uw-hoax)). And even if the speedy is declined, I think I see it snowing outside. Blueboy 96 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. ...beef gravy? --Charlene 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious hoax. Greswik 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1, A7, G3, just plain snowball, take your pick, but please, make it go away Iain99 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that original author is now adding absurd pictures which I think removes all doubt that it's patent nonsense and/or silly vandalism. So tagged. Iain99 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a violation of WP:POINT if I helped the hoaxster fix the infobox? heh... --Jaysweet 21:06, 16 July 2007 (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.