Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irvember


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Irvember


Original research. Article itself asserts that month was made up "as a joke." The related calendar is up for deletion here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (All the new templates faked me out, and I missed that this didn't make it to the log. Finished the posting, so it's in the 25 November log.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unpublished original research. Only google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or blog/forum posts &mdash; no sign of any published papers. Demiurge 13:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely non-notable, totally OR, 100% unencyclopedic, and wholly garbage. -- Kicking222 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per C.Fred. 14:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research.  Buck  ets  ofg  14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if that school is the University of Toronto. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete WP:BOLLOCKS and tagged as such. MartinDK 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy tag because this is at least semi-scholarly crap, instead of outright crap. It also falls short of the hurdle set forward in the criteria for speedy deletion for patent nonsense, in that there is salvageable text in the article, and it presents a cohesive argument—and specifically, "[CSD G1] does not include...implausible theories." Yes, this is the least useful of the articles in the sequence of them on the Symmetry454 calendar and related proposals, yes, but I still think it deserves a full discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OK. I won't get into a discussion on how to value exactly how crappy an argument/discussion is so I'll accept that. I'm not quite sure what you want to discuss about the article though? MartinDK 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the one hand, I think an argument can be made under WP:SNOW to go ahead and speedily delete the article. On the other, I see the speedy delete criteria of G1 as being intended for articles where no content can be salvaged at all from them: in other words, if it reads like the string of nonsense in a spam email, it's G1 and speedyable. If you can at least make out what the author is saying, then it goes the Prod/AfD route. So, using G1 here to speedy the article would be bad precedent. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing it that way I fully understand your objection to using G1 on this one. It's borderline so for our own future sake let's not cross the line. MartinDK 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:V, fails WP:OR, WP:NFT. "Lousy Smarch weather!" -- Kinu  t /c  18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete a lot of academic hoohah to veil the fact that this is dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 26 November 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.