Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartozoology

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. In view of the several hoax and joke articles created by User:This is not my last name, who I've blocked, I have deleted this as vandalism (G3). No prejudice to re-creation if it can be shown to be notable. —SMALL JIM 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartozoology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cartozoology is a fictitious field (finding animal shapes in street layouts), coined in the satire/humor publication Improbable Research. The joke has been covered and repeated around the web, but it should never be construed as a legitimate field. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a notable joke it could still have an article. But in the absence of evidence for that then Delete. Spinning Spark 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially WP:MADEUP, the sites that have picked this up word for word icluding the smoking-gun pretentious use of "paradigmatically " do not establish real notability.TheLongTone (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed speedy delete per WP:G12. The article is an exact match of the text at the top of this page. WP:COPYPASTE states that if a website has no mention of copyright status (such as is the case here), the website is assumed to be copyrighted. However, I would like TheLongTone to explain his concerns about copyright first, as there must have been some reason why the article was not speedily deleted immediately. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many hits including the exact text that I could not be bothered to track it down to it's original source & see what the copyright status was. There seemed to be ample grounds for deletion on other grounds.TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.