Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tall Moustache for Men
- 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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally WP:SD but user removed. Article is nonsense (obvious joke - google search for "Tall Moustache" aftershave produces 0 results) My vote Delete - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (same reason as above) NawlinWiki 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom--blue520 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, hoax. The anonymous editor who removed the speedy is from a college that the original author has edited and he did not note in any form why the speedy was removed. Kuru talk 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ho ho ho not. Tyrenius 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Probable hoax. I do not know who the anonymous editor is, but he was correct to remove the speedy deletion tag. Elaborate articles like this one are best considered in AFD. There have been incidents in the past where articles on unusual subjects, thought to be hoaxes, were found in AFD to be perfectly legitimate; for this reason we usually do not speedily delete them. Obvious "joke vandalism", on the other hand, may be speedily deleted, as may patent nonsense. —Encephalon 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probable hoax? Have you read it? Ahem: "Tom Selleck's Tall Moustache for Men...Originaly intended to be a novelty item for the Magnum, P.I. toilet bag for the christmas of 1982...its catchy advert with a jingle written by Travis McQueen and featuring a spoof of Raiders of the Lost Ark...the most popular aftershave in Wales, Germany, China and the USSR. The aftershave was taken off shelves in November, 1983 when it was discovered that the aftershave was being produced out of Cuba.?"! Pretty funny really in its own right - except US didn't even had any trade restrictions with Cuba from 1975-1992 :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm thinking the "featuring a spoof of Raiders of the Lost Ark, produced by Andi Peters and Ewan MacDonald" would have been a bit of a clue. Andi is a British media personality that would have 13 years old at the time, and Ewan is a Scottish curler who would have been 8. This passes my "obvious joke" test. Can you help me understand why you think it isn't? Kuru talk 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - after re-reading my comment, it sounds kind of snarky and that was not my intent. I am truly curious if there is something you're seeing here that seems legitimate. Kuru talk 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Kuru. I was speaking from a policy point-of-view. This article is a probable hoax: it's a pretty elaborate tale woven around half-truths, with the intention to mislead. Past experience has shown that suspected hoaxes are best dealt with on AFD. While most suspected hoaxes will probably be dealt with correctly by administrators working alone, all too often, the eccentric, unusual, or technical appear to be hoaxes to people unfamiliar with them, and can be wrongly deleted—I remember seeing articles on rare medical conditions nearly deleted in the past because people thought they were hoaxes. Editors and administrators of WP come from all over the world and from different backgrounds, and things that may be familiar to you may not be familiar to another. The above article is somewhat illustrative. The people who believe it is a hoax, i.e., all of us, think so because we are aware of certain facts that cause us to suspect the veracity of the article as a whole. Some of these are better reasons to suspect it than others—the conjecture that a British media personality could not possibly have produced a short ad in his teens is actually a pretty bad one, by the way: it is only really useful if one knew for certain that the individual in question did not, in fact, do any such thing. By opening the matter for discussion on AFD for a period of at least five days, we are less likely to make a mistake than a lone administrator considering the matter by himself for a few moments, without the benefit of other eyes and brains. I do not want us to do anything that will encourage that type of deletion of items suspected of being false, which is what we'll be doing if we start speedily deleting suspected hoaxes, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to some of us to hang on to it for a few more days. Speedy deletion is for material of whose unsuitability there is no doubt, and which does not require much research or interpretation. —Encephalon 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the very comprehensive answer - you have changed my way of thinking about this aspect of the deletion process. I'm afraid that with the enormous volume of malicious articles popping up each day, it's very easy to fall into the habit of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Kuru talk 22:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Kuru. I was speaking from a policy point-of-view. This article is a probable hoax: it's a pretty elaborate tale woven around half-truths, with the intention to mislead. Past experience has shown that suspected hoaxes are best dealt with on AFD. While most suspected hoaxes will probably be dealt with correctly by administrators working alone, all too often, the eccentric, unusual, or technical appear to be hoaxes to people unfamiliar with them, and can be wrongly deleted—I remember seeing articles on rare medical conditions nearly deleted in the past because people thought they were hoaxes. Editors and administrators of WP come from all over the world and from different backgrounds, and things that may be familiar to you may not be familiar to another. The above article is somewhat illustrative. The people who believe it is a hoax, i.e., all of us, think so because we are aware of certain facts that cause us to suspect the veracity of the article as a whole. Some of these are better reasons to suspect it than others—the conjecture that a British media personality could not possibly have produced a short ad in his teens is actually a pretty bad one, by the way: it is only really useful if one knew for certain that the individual in question did not, in fact, do any such thing. By opening the matter for discussion on AFD for a period of at least five days, we are less likely to make a mistake than a lone administrator considering the matter by himself for a few moments, without the benefit of other eyes and brains. I do not want us to do anything that will encourage that type of deletion of items suspected of being false, which is what we'll be doing if we start speedily deleting suspected hoaxes, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to some of us to hang on to it for a few more days. Speedy deletion is for material of whose unsuitability there is no doubt, and which does not require much research or interpretation. —Encephalon 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - after re-reading my comment, it sounds kind of snarky and that was not my intent. I am truly curious if there is something you're seeing here that seems legitimate. Kuru talk 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax, although a shame because this would've been extremely awesome --Deville (Talk) 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of that, there is no doubt. :) Kuru talk 22:58, 1 May 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.