Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee meat

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. Joelito (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manatee meat[edit]

Article appears to be a complete hoax Wildthing61476 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's not a complete hoax. The sentence that someone, somewhere hunted manatees is true. Everything else is the 4th attempt from the same user to recreate an article on this topic, with copyvio content collected off some websites. Seealso Talk:Manatee meat. Also discussion merged from here into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC), 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - no evidence it is a hoax. Try googling for "manatee hunting" Yomangani ^talk 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Delete on the grounds it is recreated previously deleted material. Yomangani ^talk 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhere between a hoax and an advertisement for a non-notable website. StuffOfInterest 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge into manatee, not a hoax, though the last few sections need to either be sourced better or deleted. Topic may not need its own article though, maybe a few sentences merged into manatee would be sufficient. Recury 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refer to this website and notice the similarities. This article is definitely a joke. Lawilkin 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because info is on a joke site does not necessarily mean it is false. This article comes to the same conclusion as ours does, and they actually factcheck their stuff. Plenty of other sources are available on google that concur. Recury 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you cite is simply a discussion of whether manatee meat is red meat or white meat. There is no legitimate reference to eating or hunting manatees. There is one quote from a person who has apparently tasted manatee meat, which is not a standard or notable practice. I had a steak recently; is that in the Wiki? No, it is not, and for good reason. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? It's right there, "Manatees are protected throughout their range in the world but are still illegally hunted and killed in remote areas." And of course steak is in the Wiki. Recury 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And where, pray tell, does it say anything about eating them? It doesn't. You are correct in spotting my poor phrasing, where "eating or hunting" should have been "hunting and eating." As for steak being in the Wiki - yes, of course it is. But MY steak isn't in the Wiki. Neither is manatee steak. That's as it should be. - Corporal Tunnel 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It says that in the other article that is referenced. I won't follow up on your weird non-sequitur about individual steaks not having articles, if thats OK with you. Recury 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because info is not false does not necessarily mean it needs an article and every content on the topic created by anybody must be kept. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course not, and its a damn good thing no one's claiming that. Recury 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        IF manatee meat is gone, then by the same rules, beef should be erased too. I have a verifiable source. I"m looking for the book i borrowed from the library from which i got the idea for manatee meat, so please bear with me. THIS IS NOT A HOAX! This is as much as a hoax as dumplings are.--Adam Wang 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been deleted twice before, which should be reason enough. As it stands it's link spam and contains copyrighted material, and if you remove the spam and the copyright violations all that will be left is "manatees are made of meat, and sometimes people eat them." Which is pointless, since people eat everything. The joke here is lame and, if you will, in bad taste. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and this time let's make sure it stays dead. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because of the copyright violations. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Talk to Yamla. I'm trying to fix the copy vio. Bear with me please. I have a very busy life. --Adam Wang 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not casting a vote at this time but I can confirm that MUBOTE is trying to fix the copyright violation. I suggested that really the only way of doing so is to scrap everything and start from scratch. That copying even a few words can be problematic. Also, that the article needs citations and evidence that it is not a joke article. But my comments here are to confirm that MUBOTE is working to fix the copyright violation. --Yamla 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you read his talk page, it's clear he is trying to fix the copy vio. Also, the article was in WP: UNDEL and it was saved. It was deleted the second time by accident because Yamla didn't know about the Undeletion review. Read his talk page. --Alex Defalco 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- In reading his Talk page and browsing his contributions, the main thing that comes through here is that he's in ninth grade and has a certain understandable lack of perspective in his past Wiki projects. His zeal is admirable, but I believe there is no call for this article to exist, whether or not the copyright violations are resolved. - Corporal Tunnel 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm in grade 10 now. How is this a hoax? You have admitted that there is a shred of truth. Yes, monkeyspit was a hoax. I didn't know it was a fake site. So im' getting rid of the stuff from that site. This is knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't censor. Just because the average american male may not find eating manatees particularly attractive, its the truth, WITH some verifiability to back it up. I'm currently going to the library to look for the book that i got the idea from. --Adam Wang 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's assume you just didn't know that deleted talk needs to be archived, but why did you remove great parts of your talk page now, among it all manatee-related discussion? Femto 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll put that back. I was just clearing stuff up becuase it said my talk page was too long. --Adam Wang 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is an ongoing hoax possibly connected with the elephant vandalism, as admins can see from the history of Eating Manatee. That article was illustrated with a T-bone steak photoshopped onto a picture of a manatee. Gazpacho 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily would be OK. A hoax to promote a website. --Pjacobi 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, for the reasons Corporal Tunnel said. --pIrish 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to my sources? It included books, and websites. Obviously, due to the extent of books written on this subject, it won't be a hoax. Promoting a website? I removed the information from Monkeyspit, and I'm fixing copy vio. Why delete? --Adam Wang 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The question should be "why keep" (respectively "why create" in the first place), not "why delete". I merged the details on sources into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees, as a central place for not directly deletion-related discussion, and left a pointer at the top of this page. If you want to convince other editors, start there. Those sources aren't cited on this page (beyond the basic fact that "manatees are made of meat and sometimes people eat them"). Instead, your 'taste' section still copies wholesale from Monkeyspit.com. There are two links to eatmanatee.com. Unless you consider a PO address selling books and t-shirts a reliable source, the details in that section are dubious too. Remains the reproduction of an unencyclopedic hunting travelogue. Fix it all, and there is nothing left. Femto 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the lists of books and websites into the sources. Why did you delete them? --Adam Wang 00:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per an incredible failure of WP:RS, WP:SPAM (probable promotion from eatmanatee.com), and possibly WP:HOAX. Oh, and it's been deleted multiple times before. Srose (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been assosciated to any of the websites I used as sources, ever. First, why would I promote their website? I am in 10th grade in Canada, not a college idiot with nothing to do. You may think, "If Mubote isn't affiliated with the websites in any way, why does he care so much?" It's becuase I have pride. Personally, I'm proud of starting the article. You may think otherwise.

Secondly, what would be my initiative? I don't think I'm a moron. I just ran across something interesting, and put it on wiki. Of course, wiki isn't only for "Interesting Things," you need sources. Which I have. There is no evidence that it is a hoax. True, it has been deleted twice, the second time by accident by Yamla. I recreated it after Undelete said I could. Yamla didn't know, and he let me remake. Manatee meat is just as much a hoax as beef and mutton are. Just becuase most people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't good enough for wikipedia.

Finally, if wikipedia truly does not censor, then why is this being deleted? I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats. Wikipedia has many arcane articles, and manatee meat is one of them. Manatee meat has sources, I'm fixing copy vio, I'm borrowing the books I have listed from the library, and I'm putting it on wikipedia. So please, consider my statements, and vote keep. --Adam Wang 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adam, you have now voted twice here, which is in keeping with your continuing disregard of the rules and practices of the Wiki. You have also failed to identify yourself as the author of this article. Voting twice is cheating.
You have added completely unacceptable sites as "support" for an entry that boggles the mind with its irrelevance. While you have removed the most bizarre and ridiculous of your subsections, the two remaining both fail as Wiki material. One is quoted in its entirety from a single unsupported web source which is a memoir column written for a tourist site, and the other is based on a joke website that exists only to sell t-shirts and "cookbooks." Your inclusion as an external link of a page on rexcurry.net, which appears to be a repository of undocumented paranoid ravings, is another instance of your failure to read and identify your sources. Your "educational site" is an email quoting a wire-service article about a single instance of illegal manatee meat sale - poaching, not cuisine. The "brochure" on the manatee is a management report which simply reports occasional poaching. The Thinkquest.org citation was written by elementary school students, complete with pictures drawn in crayon.
It appears that you do not understand the difference between a reference work, which exists for the edification and use of the greater public, and a blog or MySpace page, on which you can work out your obsessions in your own private circle. The standing article on manatees already has a sentence on the hunting and eating of manatees, which is more than sufficient for this pointless topic.
This entry utterly fails the first of the five pillars of the Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you post any further articles.
You are sustaining an argument here as your own personal private joke. It is beyond trivia, pointless and irrelevant in the extreme. Your inability to distinguish between the relevance of beef in worldwide civilization and the relevance of manatee meat is rather alarming.
As far as your argument that "I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats" - any such articles will be deleted as they are found, and even if there are others it does not mean that this one should be permitted - especially since you have now freely admitted in the open that this is a joke, which is not permitted here. - Corporal Tunnel 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I did not admit that this was a joke site. I admited that he monkeyspit site that I recognized that Monkeyspit, a site I unknowlingly used, is a joke site. All information from that website has been removed. Secondly, I did not mean to vote twice. I was just trying to sway other people to vote twice. Thirdly, this article is not random trivia, a dictionary, a soapboax etc. etc. It is encyclopedic fact. Eating manatees is "irrelevant" as "beef" is to cows! I can distinguish the difference between beef and manatee meat. Please don't insult me. Manatee meat is part of a culture, just as beef and other meats are. I have not freely admitted anything whatsoever. I have sources in books. I realize now that yes, my topic is too short for its own article, but no, I don't think that "manatee meat" should be removed completely. I agree with Yamla's idea below to double the existing article in Manatee, which I added, and keep like that. When I reffered to Manatee Meat as arcane, I meant that it isn't as hot an article as the United Nations is. I wrote most of The Conservative Party of Norway. It isn't exactly the most popular article, yet it isn't irrelevant. I would be satisfied by a merge. I do not write joke articles. I am not a vandal. I am not an immature high schooler. Thank you. --Adam Wang 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Although I seem to be in the minority, I'm not convinced that this is a joke article. So (for this paragraph, anyway), let's assume this is a legitimate topic. I just don't see enough content to warrant an entire article. The article on manatees has a single paragraph noting that they used to be hunted and that the commercial meat farming has been suggested as a way of preserving the species. This seems to be a relatively recent addition (wasn't there at the beginning of June, for example), so I suspect this article has already contributed to enhancing the main article. I'd like to see us look at the rest of the content and perhaps add some of it to the main article. I'm not talking a huge section, mind you, but we could at least double that section in Manatee, I'd think. --Yamla 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Blank ^Verse 05:28, 22 August 2006 (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.