Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephantorhinocube

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantorhinocube

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vandalism / blatant hoax. An anon IP has removed the speedy deletion tag. Speedy Delete G3. I42 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the contents of the article are being rapidly and radically changed. I42 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rapid changes are because this article is about a recent event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.10.132 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utter nonsense. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if not a hoax, fails WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not obviously a hoax, in fact a brief bit of Googling shows it's probably true. However, it's utterly non-notable, true or not. Delete. Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When created and first tagged the content was "Elephantorhinocube The Elephantorhinocube has been an important part of modern society. He was born in neverland in -400 B.C. to Rhino, Elephanto and Cube" - clearly a hoax. When I searched for the term on Google I got zero hits. Now the article has morphed into an explanation that it is part of an experiment with Google and a Google search brings back 341 hits. So still deletable as an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, but if this experiment becomes notable there may be a place for it here somewhere. I42 (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, experiment, or whatever, it's not notable because there is no substantial coverage of it in reliable sources. Without prejudice to the article's later recreation if future scientists, journalists, and Oprah hail it as something other than a waste of time. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in fact, Google is tagging a majority of the hits for this term as attack sites. Would it be bad faith to construe the article as an attempt to drive traffic to malware sites? Would it be beyond the spirit of IAR to just stick a vandalism CSD tag back onto it? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable experiment. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article started as nonsence but is about a pretty important even and they the people on 4chan proved that it is possible and they deserve credit, I have tried to pad the article out a bit but but it still needs improving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.206.178 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 April 2010
Delete, nonnotable webcontent, attempting to use Wikipedia to bootstrap it into something notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (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.