Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elks on the Up and Up


 * 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. Denelson83 05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Elks on the Up and Up
Google search shows no hits for this book, and the title and claims strain credibility. Delete as unverifiable. Dvyost 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Google hits, and what researcher would know that much about Nunavut and its wildlife and STILL call it a province? Devotchka 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete when i first looked at it I was just doing stub sorting, I did not check facts. As I googled it too and turned up no results I doubt the credability. Chemturion 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I want to delete the article about this non-existent book's author, I guess the book itself oughta go, too. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know why the title and claims should strain credibility, except perhaps for the 'best-seller' claim. A study of elk breeding and migration certainly seems plausible, and it's not unknown for serious natural-history books to have lighthearted titles (e.g., Mice All Over by Peter Crowcroft). Having said that, I don't see any evidence that this book really exists. Perodicticus 13:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Devotchka, it's even worse than that: look at the author's article. Considering that Nunavut didn't even exist until 1999, how exactly could an author who died in 1952 write a book about it? Delete hoax. Bearcat 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Hoax, unverfiable and there are no elk in Nunavut. Caribou: yes, lots and they do migrate. Moose: some in the south but the Tundra is not their favoured habitat. I will also be putting Tyler Harlan up for deletion. Luigizanasi 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * {It's already up...) Bearcat 05:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my eye failed me. Anyway, voted on that one too. :-) Luigizanasi 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you can't speedy just for being a hoax. Check out CSD G1...   --Dvyost 05:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, we have to follow procedures. How about for being patent nonsense? I change my vote, I meant patent nonsense, not hoax. :-) Luigizanasi 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that criterion was really meant to convey something more along the lines of "the determination of hoax status may require more than one set of eyes; sometimes what looks like a hoax to you might actually be just a bad article about a legitimate topic". I don't think it was ever meant to suggest that hoaxes somehow have an inherent right to stick around. Bearcat 05:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno... It doesn't seem like "This does not include hoaxes" has a lot of ambiguity in it. Wouldn't that more than one set of eyes mean the AfD process?  Don't worry, I don't think it's saying that hoaxes have the right to stick around (I'm the one who flagged this one, in fact), only that they need to be AfDed first to confirm that they're fake.  After all, it's not as if letting the article live for an extra few days is going to do any harm; it's tagged as an AfD, and who's going to come to Wikipedia to look up "Elks on the Up and Up" in the next week anyway? =) --Dvyost 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Understood; I'm just saying that I have seen obvious hoaxes, where the AFD consensus went in favour of speedying, which then got speedied in advance of the formal AFD closing with no objections. So I don't particularly think that voting to speedy when something is obviously beyond question as a hoax is an unreasonable thing to do. Bearcat 06:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per hoax arguments. --maclean25 00:41, 5 November 2005 (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.