Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Movie


 * 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   '''Speedy delete. Banned troll. Please let me know ASAP when you find this pattern of hoax articles about children's films.'''. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday Movie

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

Contested prod. Article seems to have been created to support previously deleted additions to the article on Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. No google or IMDB results seem to point to this being simply a hoax rather than crystal-ballery. OBM | blah blah blah 10:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax. Friedberg and Seltzer seem attract hoaxers, or perhaps just one hoaxer - see a similar one at Articles for deletion/Spy Movie. If not a hoax, it should go anyway as failing WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above: if this isn't a hoax, it shouldn't have an article until shooting starts. See also Articles for deletion/Road Bikers (2009 film).  Cliff smith  talk  17:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems like a hoax to me. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a hoax, one by a prolific vandal whose sole purpose here is to create similar hoaxes. Speedy delete if possible.  --70.104.7.231 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete With haste and ferver. Almost A clever hoax... as the name "Doomsday Movie" shows dozens hundreds of google hits... for a different "Movie" called "Doomsday". Combining the article name in different combinations with "Disney", "Friedberg", and/or "Seltzer" bring up zero hits past Wikipedia. Get this out ASAP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, what the hell! Plrk (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that hoaxes generally aren't candidates for speedy deletion, and in this case it's plausible enough (on the face of it) to avoid being classed as vandalism. However, if it is proven that this is the work of User:Lyle123 then speedying with extreme prejudice seems the only way to go.OBM | blah blah blah 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a real-world "game" to construct "plausible" hoaxes to post them on Wiki. There is then a money pool set up and the person who guesses how long it lasts on Wiki wins the pool. The growing addition of hoaxes will get worse. I do think that speedies should be allowed for hoaxes. If the hoax turns out to be fact, then the article can be returned.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I removed everything that was obviously lies: the future dates, the director and producer, the list of "parody films", etc. When I was done, nothing was left, so I tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. Plrk (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My edits were reverted, but I won't go wheel-warring. However, in defense of my actions, I would like to refer to Ignore all rules, Snowball clause, and Use common sense. Even though this article is clearly bullshit from top to bottom - dated in the future, external link leading to a 404 page, WALL-E listed as a parody movie, and Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer listed as producers even though they are clearly not - it has still not been deleted. What the hell is wrong?! Plrk (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - process should not be followed for process' sake. Plrk (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted for the reasons stated in the edit log. Specifically that blanking an article is against AfD policy and that's effectively what you did.  I'm also unhappy with the idea of blanking the article and then claiming a3 as it seems an attempt to circumvent procedure.  In this instance I can understand the reasons but don't agree with the actions and am worried it would set a dangerous precedent.  I'd be quite happy to see the article speedied under g3 (as an obvious hoax) or as a speedy close of this AfD (per WP:SNOW) and in general I'm quite happy for processes not to be followed (I'm aware of all policies quoted) if it is clearly explained that this is what is happening / proposed and why.  Indeed I'd even have been happy with a generic speedy tag where you explained your reasoning and referenced WP:IAR or similar.  In this case it was the way it was being attempted and the lack of accountability that I was unhappy with rather than the proposed result.  Dpmuk (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your actions completely, and it is not all too unlikely I would have done the same thing myself. However, while blanking an article is against AfD policy, removing obviously untrue statements is crucial for the encyclopedia's survival - and in this case, the article was left blank after this was done. I just wish someone could close this and get rid of the damned article. Plrk (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with haste, per nom and the comments above. --Lockley (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious hoax. See also my comments above. Dpmuk (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (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.