Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clam Commune

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clam Commune
Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a hoax.
 * Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a rather good hoax, but let down a little by the fact that giving references means that people can see the references in question don't actually exist... delete, but eight out of ten for the attempt. Shimgray 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - but also give eight out of ten for the attempt. I particularly liked the MacKinnon reference in one of the other ones. Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you award hoaxers marks of out ten, they are sure to keep trying until they get full marks, is that what you want? Kappa 11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am getting awfully tired of this user's vandalism RussellG 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, google is the be-all and end-all of finding information... (JoJo)
 * Notably, no-one actually cited Google as a source above... it's trivial to verify, though, using standard bibliographic methods that the references quoted in the article don't exist. After that, it all begins to become clear... Shimgray 12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- 'JoJo 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
 * Keep But delete faulty references, I can personally vouch for the Clan's existence.Jamesss 13:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Matthewleung87 14:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) If you say so Jamesss
 * Delete Sockpuppetry Proto 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense. Can't this user take his obvious talent and work on real topics? There are many articles that require revision and he's not only wasting his own time, but many others.... --Habap 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete these sockpuppets have too much time on their hands. Ooops, and so do I... --Etacar11 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and Robertson, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitous manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiable by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't use Google. I use Dogpile, which searches Google and several other search engines. If something is written eloquently, it is not immediately recognizable as complete lunacy, so the administrator categorized it and gave it the benefit of the doubt pending further investigation. Are you trying to prove that it is possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia? Well, it is. Fortunately, there are enough eyeballs on these kinds of things and mechanisms for removal to ensure that deliberate lunacy such as yours is corrected. If you really want to have an impact find some poorly written articles and revise them. --Habap 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I ainta a sockpuppet you fools, ah jussa wanna have a say in dise "articles".
 * Replace with an article about the real Clam Commune{http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.belotteau/Beloteau/communedeclam.htm}
 * Keep As with Blue orchid, recommend joke label attached though- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
 * Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --FCYTravis 09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- it is very funny, 'TagTeam 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
 * Delete - pseudo-postmodernist rubbish experiment backed up sockpuppets, possible violation of WP:POINT. Contributor is advised to concentrate on fiction writing - Skysmith 10:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .