Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dux, CA

Dux, CA was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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

Probable hoax by the same anon user who contributed Amos Farquhar (which was nominated for deletion above). The reasons I suspect this of being a hoax are listed in the article's talk page. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, prank, hoax (never mind it's well-written). Wyss 22:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes are not speedy candidates.
 * That comment by Rossami. Please sign your posts. Andrewa 23:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes, IMO, are the same as vandalism. This is the latest in a long line of nonsense from an anon who should be banned outright.  Speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax, it's simply a fabrication. I'm speedy deleting under criteria 1 and 4. It's patent nonsense in that it is not information, and the opposite of information is noise. It also lacks any context as it does not have any existence in the real world, or in any shared virtual world either. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:26, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding rule 1, patent nonsense defines it as "1) Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that has no assignable meaning at all; or 2. Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it." So total bullshit does not qualify as patent nonsense by either definition. I believe you might be looking at proposed case 4 (total fabrication); these cases should be adopted sez me, but they haven't yet. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure about the speedy, we need to walk a fine line sometimes, although I agree there were valid grounds under existing policy. We need to avoid feeding trolls, but we also need to avoid destroying the evidence that allows us to respond to vandalism. In particular, once an article is deleted it no longer shows on the list of the user's contributions, which can be very revealing in cases like this one. Andrewa 23:59, 17 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.