Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slippery John

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 delete. Singularity 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Slippery John

Slippery John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to be a hoax. No references at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoaxy. A Google search comes up with no results outside of Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax, albeit a fairly clever one. Its creator might consider other venues for his work. PhGustaf (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (G3) as something made up in a bar one day. —BradV 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no way this qualifies as a G3. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD says that G3 is for "blatant and obvious misinformation." I think it qualifies. —BradV 23:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see it as a close call. I'd tend to call it "nonsense" rather than "hoax" because there's no real attempt to deceive the reader — it's a pretty obvious prank. But no harm in doing it this way. PhGustaf (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's still less a G1, which is quite explicitly not for hoaxes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:HOAX. If this drink really exists, there would be independent sources for it. Artene50 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:HOAX being the guideline that states that "hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates"?
  • WP:HOAX also says "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". There are so many bits of blatant nonsense here that it's no such attempt. J. M. Lee, for example, is a real hoax, with no obvious cues to the reader. PhGustaf (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I did enjoy that the ingredients for this drink add up to 125%. Must be some drink! :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Has nobody noticed the arithmetic in the first line? I think this is within speedy for nonsense. DGG (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. i mean, come on. "Joprph-Tuesllwdawy Jowyb"? Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This drink is no doubt in existence and enjoyed all over England, however it did not come from Wales! (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, DGG brings up a very good point. This isn't really nonsense or a hoax, as it obviously is quite legible and doesn't make much of an effort to hide its foolishness. However, it is vandalism, though not blatant enough for a G3. FusionMix 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. Not only is this total nonsense, the percentages (85 and 40) add up to more than 100.evildeathmath 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the percentage thing is deliberate! (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.107.111 (talk)
• Delete - I'm 40% sure it's a hoax. I'm 85% sure it isn't notable. I'm 125% sure that I am unable to find confirmation that it is notable and that no evidence is provided or forthcoming. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG, likely a speedy deletion candidate. RFerreira (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.