Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Roversforthecup/Cactus Man

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Roversforthecup/Cactus Man


Draft article of an already deleted article at Cactus Man. I should note that this is a hoax, and there is a section in this article which concerns me (7.8) named "Why Cactus Man Hates Wikipedia". MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is definitely not deleteable by the CSD criterion used on the mainspace article.  I doubt it is the same thing.  As a hoax, it is too obvious, and with the Wikipedia self-mention, I read this as satire, and Wikipedia related user satire should not be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Section 7.8 is considering because of these sentences: "Cactus Man recently tried to add his article to Wikipedia, but his article was "unfairly declined". Cactus Man thought this a very unreasonable act and now Wikipedia is now on Cactus Man's Revenge List. Wikipedia you have been warned. However, Wikipedia will rule over google, so there are no discussions over which search engine/information centre is better." Even though the last sentence seems alright, the first three seems concerning, especially since it references that Cactus Man was an article created by the user, but was declined. Also, naming his list "Revenge List" is a bit concerning as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Revenge List is even more obviously satire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete under some combination of WP:FAKEARTICLE and many sections of WP:NOT. If the author wants to make a legitimate effort, no objections to restoration, but not as it is. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as not needed - it's a fake article and no being edited. Legacypac (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as excessive unrelated content. Made-up nonsense: WP:G1 also applies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 10 February 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.