Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical creature hierarchy

Mythical creature hierarchy

Deleting administrator should remember to delete the image along with the article.

I have copied this article to BJAODN for its humor value, please keep the image. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod, if you can believe that. Original prod reason was "Completely unsourced and unverifiable, severely POV ("by far the most awesome mystical being?"), verges on patent nonsense" VoiceOfReason 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outright original research. --physicq210 06:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Idea created in a day on a piece of paper --ArmadilloFromHell 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Research doesn't get more original than this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and also no contest: Cerberus is the best mythical creature - Three heads, people! ;-) Onebravemonkey 08:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unless we can establish a consensus to place me at the top of the hierarchy. My Alt Account 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think I may have done something like that myself back in my younger days. It made me smile, which so few AfD nominated articles ever do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, opiniated essay. Not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either nonsense or original research. Noone seems to be stepping up and even claiming one could try to provide sources. Lundse 13:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want a source for something... anything related, there is one for the hierarchy of dragons in D&D. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our thunderbird article clearly states that the thunderbirds beat up the dragons. So there! - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOR... and the handwritten web diagram pushes this into BJAODN territory. the whole article and image should be sent there... Gnomes rule!--Isotope23 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is anyone else bothered that "humans" appear on the hierarchy? Also, I'm a little surprised that some medieval monks didn't already do this. -- Merope ^Talk/_Review 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, Things Made Up In School One Day, and possibly a Bad Joke And Other Deleted Nonsense. - 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would think that somebody drank one too many brews and then wrote this, but the handwriting is too good for that. It sure is amusing though. - Runch 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no sources, completely original research and it looks like the image is a scanned in drawing (probably by the article creator). Not encyclopedic at all. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, this is hilarious and horribly unencyclopedic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous.UberCryxic 00:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR and just plain silly. Ergative rlt 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NFT, WP:PN, WP:CB. Not even worth the attention of BJAODN. Ou tis 14:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN This is really funny. The image is going on my hard drive.--Planetary 04:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]