Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardem


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardem

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Obviously a hoax, based on Camden, NJ, as the map shows. Unfortunately CSD doesn't apply to most hoaxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (obviously). This article will no doubt be included in Wikipedia once hell has frozen over, but until then it's a pretty badly thought out hoax... - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know that it has already frozen over, don't you? Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh! You mean WP:SNOW is rendered obsolete? My head hurts... - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as of 7 centuries ago. Anyone who knows xyr Dante, or even xyr Niven and Pournelle, should be reluctant to use that metaphor.  That will be one of those ice cream headaches, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No google hits for a "Cardem New Jersey" in any real or fictional universe. Fails WP:V and WP:MADEUP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and someone should look to Snow this, it is pretty blatantly a hoax. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoax.  shirulashem     (talk)   02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as feeble hoax. "The most unseasonable snowfall was on May 3, 1989" - time for another SNOWfall today. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as hoax. Map is of Camden, a small rearrangement to become Cardem. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes are included under CSD, and there appears to be no reason to have to wait for this AfD to run its course. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote from policy document: "#1 Patent nonsense ... This does not include ... hoaxes;" (emphasis in original), though G1 is, I note, misused on a number of CSDs (as policy would officially define it, at least). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be WP:PROD as per this.  shirulashem     (talk)   17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean it wasn't prod'd in the first place... presumably on the assumption that it was going to contested. Still it now works out quicker to let this AfD finish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, no PROD to begin with since it was brand new I figured the author would contest, so why waste the time. Plus, now it will be a speedy candidate if anyone tries to re-create. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.