Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Falasco and Frank Holzone


 * 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.  Sango  123    (e)  00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Don Falasco and Frank Holzone
Tagged for speedy deletion but contested. Does not appear to be a speedy candidate to me, though I can't really make head or tale of it to find out. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense/hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. No google hits for any part except Don Johnson.  Mr Stephen 08:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nothing about "Scared Cops" movies in IMDB either. Paddles 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax and probably nn even if it isn't a hoax. DarthVad e r 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nonsense and hoax and garbage. Honestly, no offense, Chick Bowen, but if you can't figure out how this can be speedily deleted as patent nonsense, then you haven't read the article. -- Kicking222 13:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken. I was exercising unusual caution because the speedy had been contested.  If another admin wants to speedy it or close this discussion as WP:SNOW that's fine with me. Chick Bowen 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This brings up a point which I'm not entirely clear on. I've seen similar hoax articles speedily deleted as patent nonsense. However, I'm curious if they really qualify as such. The guideline states that patent nonsense is not to be confused with a hoax . My reading of the guideline is that patent nonsense is essentially junk text or any sort of text which just makes no sense. So, as long as you can read and understand an article, it's not patent nonsense, no matter how clearly false the content may be. Am I correct on this, or am I missing the point? ScottW 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And while I'm here, delete as hoax. ScottW 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoax is generally not considered a CSD, no, for the reason that plenty of things seem to be hoaxes but aren't--a hoax requires investigation. A truly transparent hoax could reasonably be considered patent nonsense.  Chick Bowen 04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax, and rather juvenile one at that. Moriori 01:28, 16 May 2006 (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.