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.
Delete = This is a hoax with a lot of snickering bloggers behind it. Well done, lads, you got into Wikipedia. Now go put the dunce cap on, lads, you're getting out of Wikipedia... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax. A feeble, stupid, unconvincing, unfunny hoax. ReykYO! 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is obvious and unconvincing and feeble, but I thought it was rather funny myself. Alas, it is clearly a hoax Tractops (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modify - the name Emerson LaSalle is in the public interest. The feature film PULP BOY concerning the story of Emmerson LaSalle is currently in pre-production in Utah.--Fedora 27 (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film's "website" is a blog, the film doesn't have a page on IMDB, and the purported producer[1] has never made anything that even came to the attention of the obsessives at IMDB who document everything down to what individual episodes of Johnny Carson had Ricardo Montalban on them. This is rapidly becoming less funny and more pathetic. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to delete this page now that it has been properly updated. Fedora 27 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora 27 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 February 2009[reply]
You've documented it as just an unverifiable and non-notable game played by a bunch of guys in their blogs. That makes it just as deletable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many, many screenplays are optioned. A fictional character in an unproduced screenplay does not meet the notability standard. If Pulp Boy is actually produced, the article can be reinstated. As for Fedora 27's modifications, not only are they poorly written and ungrammatical, they also blame readers. They blame readers for not being in on the joke, and for the original article not being written to wikipedia standards. Furthermore, Fedora 27 appears to have voted multiple times, since their three revisions to this AfD page appear as separate items, two of them unsigned. Sjlewis (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE - Everything has been updated on the entry with fact divided from fiction, and duely noted. Fedora 27 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already voted - Forget that the film is in developement, as it obviously doesn't have much bearing while in this phase. If the character entry can remain on Wikipedia as fancruft or blogcruft, then let it. If not, lets remove the entry until the character is better established.--Fedora 27 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I don't want my good name being spoiled on some rotten encyclopedia that lists the likes of Darth Vader,Spider-man, and Hilary Duff as having "credible sources of their existence."--Emerson LaSalle (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)--Fedora 27 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2009 (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.