| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article edit
XXX (born November 12, 1991) is a Korean-American Firefighter who works for the Hastings Fire Department. At the age of 8, XXX single handily saved 10 people from a burning building. When asked how he had the courage to do it, he said "XXX ain't nothin to fuck with." He then proceeded to rap Wu-Tang Clan's entire Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) album with Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu. XXX was the first person to set foot on the Moon and Mars. XXX punched his way out of his mother's womb, instead of being conceived naturally. His father is 110 years old and does yoga everyday. XXX once won $20 when a friend dared him to eat a baby. "It wasn't that hard" says XXX. It was actually quite delicious. He is best friends with YYY (AKA Four Eye Killah) and ZZZ (AKA Mastah On Dah Block). XXX has the ability to travel at the speed of light and make sushi with a snap of the finger. Not everyone likes XXX though. He has an evil villain that goes by the name of GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG-PACKKKKKKKKKKKK.
Nomination Criteria edit
G1
Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.
Deletion Options edit
| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 7 | 11.3 |
| Disagree with rationale. G1 explicitly excludes fictional materials, vandalism, and implausible theories, but deletable by other criteria. | 47 | 75.8 |
| Disagree with rationale. G1 explicitly excludes fictional materials, vandalism, and implausible theories, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 8 | 12.9 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion. | 0 | 0 |
Survey Comments edit
| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| G3 | 22 |
| A7 | 4 |
- G3 Vandalism/obvious hoax. If it's a complete comprehensible English sentence, it's probably not G1.
- utterly implausible IAR delete under any criteria
Balloonman's analysis edit
Patent nonsense does not mean that the article is nonsense in the sense that the article is exaggerated or outrageous, but rather that it fits one of the two definitions at WP:NONSENSE:
- Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdyhgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
- Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
This article is a fanciful article with implausible theories and a clear hoax, but it is not patent nonsense in the manner Wikipedia defines patent nonsense here. The text is not composed of random characters with no assignable meaning. Similarly, the text is legible. A reasonable person can be expected to make sense of it, despite it's being implausible. Thus it does not fit under the patent nonsense section of G1.
G1 also explicitly excludes hoaxes, vandalism, poor writing, etc. This further excludes G1 as a viable option. Again, those who appeal to IAR to delete this under G1, are doing so against explicit consensus of the community. IAR does not mean that you can use IAR to ignore policy that explicitly states that it shouldn't be used. Eg, the policy explicitly states you can't use it on hoaxes, to IAR and use it on hoaxes is explicitly excluded by community discussion. The community has determine the policy and yet some think IAR gives them the right to ignore community consensus and redefine G1 to fit their definition.
A7 doesn't apply because the article does make numerous claims to significance/importance.
G3 is appropriate because it is blatant misinformation. While G1 cannot be used for hoaxes, G3 can be *IF* the hoax is a clear case of vandalism. Note, the reason why hoaxes are treated differently is because what people sometimes think are hoaxes turns out to be true.