Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical creature hierarchy

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 BJAODN. I'm leaving the image as it is since it's PD. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Al e x ^{(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]

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.