Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini Mammoth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 13:21Z

Mini Mammoth

[edit]

Delete. Joke article about an imaginary animal dreamt up by a couple of DJs. Google search brings up 251 discrete results, the first page of which has nothing to do with the Mini Mammoth of the article. Claims that there are "expressions of interest from the scientific and paleontology community" and that Paris Hilton thinks it's hot. According to the Jay and the Doctor page, the article has been deleted before. ... discospinster talk 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also As useful as a Mini Mammoth. Uncle G 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also all of the pictures that have been mocked up for the purpose of this article: Image:McMiniMammoth.jpg, Image:Wtfwinkingminimammoth.gif, Image:Wtfblinkingminimammoth.gif, Image:IMammothnano.jpg, Image:Miniass.jpg, Image:MiniMSitedAt SB Brisbane.jpg, and Image:Walking a mini mammoth.jpg Uncle G 09:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the current version may have been modified severely - this is the version before I removed most of the obviously fake material.'ViridaeTalk' 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just semi-protected this AFD, as it was getting silly. Proto::type 10:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it i have a friend whos friend has a mini mammoth on their desk top at Telstra. Her friend reckons telstra paid for the research because mini mammoths are great at installing phones.
  • Keep for a few days. I don't believe this article was used for advertising, It has come about though a discussion on a morning breakfast show, people have picked up the idea and are having fun with the concept. While I understand that the academic value of the content is low, it is an interesting case study on the creation of an "in joke". Wikipedia contains much esoteric information, and I think that as long as this article is not harming wikipedia as a whole, it should be left.

    I also believe that this has spread the influence of wikipedia, as more people discover wikipedia for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netbogan (talk • contribs)

  • Keep it Who are you to say that jay and the doctor's conceptual minimammoth idea is not suitable for an article? It is a concept for an idea, and im sure if minimammoths were created one day, that i would like to have one wandering around my place. Also, it is not a publicity stunt because triple j is not a commercial radio station. thats my two cents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep for a few weeks I concur. Many themes and ideas from radio shows have long-standing Wikipedia pages. Including many from the Jay and the Doctor show (check the Jay and the Doctor Wiki pages for examples). Triple J is an Australian government-owned radio station, they don't have advertisements, so no commercial advangage can be gained from the page. Rather, their audience will be exposed to the world of Wikipedia. If anything, perhaps the link to the merchandising site, not related to Triple J but commercial nonetheless, could be pulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.145 (talk • contribs)
  • I Concur In regards to the above comments relating to the keeping of the mini mammoth wiki page I add the following- Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/--203.52.220.161 00:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)|contribs]]) [reply]
  • Speedy G4 and protect as repost. --Kinu t/c 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since G4 doesn't apply, I move for a delete the old-fashioned way, as WP:NOT for joke articles. Yes, it can contain articles about notable jokes, but the astroturfing of the jokes themselves is not a suitable use of standalone encyclopedic articles. --Kinu t/c 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Never knew a lil light hearted humour was so offensive to some...eg disco sphincter, oops, sorry, dint i say that right?
— Note: Fofuxake (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions and might be a single purpose account --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I've already marked the article for deletion and it WAS deleted at least 2 times. Oh and who invited the sockpuppets? Wildthing61476 00:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Which criteria for speedy deletion or criteria for deletion has this article filled to be classified for deletion and speedy deletion so many times, please tell me? or are you (yes im pointing to you Wildthang!) ) just being a noodle and spoiling the only chance i might have of spreading the word about the possible existance of the mini mammoth or getting one for my lounge room?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs) .
  • This article has not been through AFD before, and no speedy deletion criterion applies to the article. Uncle G 00:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it is a clear abuse of Wikipedia to promote a silly joke on a radio show, and original research. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting jokes. Delete. Uncle G 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is an entry for Space_Goat - I guess the difference is that is a serial whereas the Mini Mammoth is a topic of discussion. Would you be happier if that article made it clear that is just a topic of discussion, or if the article was transformed to be more of a discussion of the joke that includes some information on the joke itself? If it doesn't get any more airplay in a couple of weeks, I won't be sad to say it go - but I'm sure space goat had it's critics when it was starting out, so why not what and see? DaveAU 01:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'd be happier if you based your contributions to Wikipedia on cited sources, adhered to our policies of Wikipedia:No original research, and did not attempt to introduce nihilartikels here at the behests of radio show DJs. Uncle G 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since I haven't added or edited any articles that seems a little hostile, especially the use of "we" and "our" from an admin. Space Goat only got marked as unreferenced after I mentioned it, so at the time I made it my comment was made from a wikipedia article that didn't have a problem. And as we've discussed elsewhere, it's as well or poorly referenced as The Goons, but that article hasn't been marked as unreferenced. I was just trying to have a discussion, maybe get to understand the wikipedia process a little. I now feel very unwelcome here.DaveAU 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administrators reading this might like to consider speedy deletion criterion #G3. Uncle G 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 217.146.110.206 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few weeks The origin and fictional nature of the concept is stated at the outset. The article could do with a good edit, but it is clear that the discussion of the concept is satirical and comic. I refer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article for an example of a comic concept that has taken on a life of its own. As such, both concepts are appropriate subjects for Wikipedia. However if the idea peters out in a week or two, it would be appropriate to delete the article. Papertiger96 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is no different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article which has been around for a while, it is not a commercial venture and does not qualify as vandalism either.130.95.48.22 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few weeks I've added it to the category Fictional species - if the non-existence of the animal is grounds for deletion you need to take out the whole category. There are many species from books and video games in there - the radio is just as valid a form of media, especially now podcasts exist making the medium potentially as persistent as books or video games. It might be more appropriate for placement on uncylcopedia, but as Papertiger said, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets a page, the Mini Mammoth has the right to a page. As an observation the mention on JJJ increases the exposure of wikipedia to the general public, and the multiple deletes and repostings would make wikipedia sound fairly unprofessional and disorganised to people hearing about it for the first time. I'll be watching the process carefully. Edit: used 3 tildes rather than 4 - oops. DaveAU 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm now undecided - Kinu made the good point that the article is astroturfing the joke. I don't have a strong preference either way - I've just been trying to point out pertinent things like the commercial side of it being a hijack, the origin being a news article and existence of other articles on fictional animals. Even if it's just a running joke, there's a discussion of the use of 'Hot grits' as a running joke in the slashdot article. But the astroturfing is a grave concern. And I don't think they're sock puppets coming in - they're probably listeners who only heard about wikipedia this morning - they'll also be aware if people are recommending deletion without having the facts... I won't lose any sleep if it's deleted immediately for astroturfing or if it hangs around to see if it lasts. Actually, if it can be called astroturfing it probably falls short of the original research criteria... DaveAU 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Discospinster has not provided good reasons for its deletion. It is encyclopediac as are various other fictional species within Australian culture. Discospinster incorrectly labelled the article a number of times (his behaviour stunk of nothing but vandalism and trolling) and now he's continuing. I vote for keeping the article and if Discospinster continues his behaviour (as he has done on a number of articles (see his talk page), he should be reprimanded.Pontifexmaximus 01:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Really now. Is this one of those practical jokes that DJs like to pull, like calling up the Queen and pretending to be Jean Chretien? ... discospinster talk 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No. It's a riff on a news item that took on a life of it's own. Use google news, look for "mammoth", you'll see where it came from. I'm a little worried that you have marked it for deletion without understanding it's origin. DaveAU 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Uncle G. --JeremyA 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, this is a spoof article, with a poor standard of grammar, on an ephemeral topic. Ordinary Person 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete per Danny Lilithborne. Wikipedia would be useless if it had to follow the whim of all radio DJs and their "dittoheads". Lazybum 02:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, manufactured attempt at creating some buzz and selling some cafepress items. Good luck with sweeping up the socks. Kuru talk 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe cafepress link is actually a hijack of the page/idea. The radio program this stems from is on a non-commercial radio station, so selling isn't the motivation. DaveAU
  • Delete as original research. As has been pointed out, this does not qualify for speedy deletion - mholland 02:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OI as stated before, J&theDR have no need to create a buzz, they are from a non-commercial, government funded radio station. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.177.6 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep it Firstly, as has already been stated, there does not appear to yet be a satisfactory reason for the entire deletion of the Mini Mammoth article. The article could be perhaps modified to meet general Wikipedia standards. NetBogan makes a few pertinent points, including the potential for such an article to increase the audience and scope of the Wikipedia project. This is important, and allows the number of sources of information for Wikipedia articles to increase. I would like to further express the potential for this to be "an interesting case study on the creation of an 'in joke'" and a way to explore the potential for fictitious characters to evolve and become 'real' with continuing discussion. As a biological scientist, I would also like to point out that there is a basis to state that scientific research is never conclusive - according to the null hypothesis method, a scientist, in research, should essentially set out to disprove a theory - so that, in reality, science never really proves anything. So, there is really no way to prove that the Mini Mammoth does not already exist or, furthermore, that it will not exist in the future. Finally, why is this page being classed as original research? I do not find there to be anything that may be considered as scientific research within the Mini Mammoth entry. In addition, the idea is not entirely original, as DaveAU points out - the idea of the Mini Mammoth evolved from a current news item. --Bauhinia 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Not only is it original research, but once you get rid of all the unverifiable cruft (e.g. "Their legs also fetch a high price as they are often used for drink umbrella stands."), there is really nothing to the article. -Seidenstud 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep We need more mini mammoths! 130.102.0.176 02:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! This article seems to be shameless self promotion for the Jay and the Dr. show on Triple J, which, lets face it, isnt even that great anyway. Shame, boys, shame.
  • Strong Delete. There is no possible way this subject is notable, and most of the people urging "keep" here do not seem to understand Wikipedia standards regarding WP:OR, and have offered no valid Wikipolicy-based reasons for their position. Crabapplecove 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not?Oh come on. Wikipedia is destroying the legitimacy of online media and information resources anyway….let the article live. At least this is a legit possibility. There’s a lot of stuff on this site that doesn’t deserve its own info page….Paris Hilton anyone? At least on this page she’s entertainining. --Minimammoth 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, champ. It's a discussion. Pontifexmaximus 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not" isn't a valid discussion response, Perry Mason. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, based on a news item or not (see definition of original research: WP:NOR). Also, while Triple J / Jay and the Dr aren't commercially motivated, they do appear to be quite desperate for entertaining content. Stick to your strong points gentlemen, music, not humour. As to promoting Wikipedia, is that a legitimate reason to keep an article? Many other reasons are given as to why this is against Wikipedia policy. Why make an exception? To the poster above, keeping this sort of conent is what destroys Wikipedia's "legitimacy". 61.29.52.38 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this is merely the product of hype, then in a few days it will be gone and nobody will care if you delete it. The article is generating a great deal of traffic and edits. Therefore, there is great interest in the topic and its being recorded for Wikipedia. I'm amazed at the people who've said 'Delete' who haven't actually provided good reasons for its deletion. At the moment, the article is qualitatively better than about 60% of Wikipedia articles. What is the difference between this and an article on a fictional species in Star Trek? This article even has links to proper news sources. Pontifexmaximus 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Minimammoth and Star Trek is that literally billions of people have heard of Star Trek, and the Minimammoth isn't famous at all. Crabapplecove 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just as a friendly reminder, you only need to vote once, so any other remarks you make should be seen as comments. With THAT being said....Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball, if this term/idea dies out in the next few days or weeks, we'll have to go through this process AGAIN to have the article removed. My point is this, remove the article for now, and IF this continues to be a notable fad, then by all means restore the article. A new running joke on a radio show does not warrant enough for an article on Wikipedia, but as I said if this has any staying power, by all means replace the article. Wildthing61476 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terribly sorry, Wildthing, but this is not a vote. It is a discussion. The first bold text allows us to see the general context of the comment. Pontifexmaximus 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In neither of the two instances in which you noted this fact did anyone refer to the discussion as a "vote." In this context, the term "vote" refers not to majority/plurality voting, but to "expressing one's preference for a proposed resolution of an issue." —David Levy 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, or merge it. Theres alot of content on wikipedia that has no factual base, so why should this article be treated any different, but if it must go why not move the content to the jay and the doctor article areadly present on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfox404 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 July 2006

  1. What harm can it do?
  2. It may even generate the debate on cloning.... Again.... Lauren 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep come on! its cool! jay and the doctor are very funny and if you were to delete THIS you would have to delete all the fictional articles. people wouldnt be happy about that!
  • a belief site Don't delete this site because there is a number of the comunity who actually believes this article, and it would be a dissapointment to those people if something they believed and trusted in was gone. This is NOT an advertising site.It also gives a new light and hope on cloning. Who knows? This may lead up to portable cloning machines. -- Frank mershall 10:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frank mershall (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it! don't delete it! you guys are all to uptight! let go once in a while. im still in school, and all the people in my class know about the mini mammoth. its a bit of comic relief, something to get away form reality. i say good on jay and the doctor for doing something that shows their keen imagination, and knack for making people laugh. its a bit of harmless fun. i bet if it was on channel 9 news you would keep it no doubt! the radio(and most definately triple j) is just another respectable form of media, so keep it, not because it may or may not be true, but because it makes peolpe HAPPY! or is that word too hard to understand? User:Family account 10:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)laretta den[reply]
Family account (talk • contribs) has made no other contributions to Wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not your personal blog or personal webspace. It's an encyclopedia and we have standards to uphold and in this case: notability criteria and Wikipedia:Verifiability. What you newcomers have to understand is that those of us on the AFD team will not be persuaded by appeals to our sense of fun/humour or blatant sockpuppetry like we are seeing now. Anyone who has only created a new account in the last few days or has not made any significant contributions to other articles WILL BE IGNORED in this discussion. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less boring than loads of stuff about Star Wars, pokemon, etc. Still, the latter demonstrably is the subject of mass attention [gods know why]; this is not. Therefore, delete. -- Hoary 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Proto::type 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Funny DJs, great music but a silly elephant - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:CSD#G1, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, but Wikipedia is not a place for joke articles, or patent nonsense as this article clearly is. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoaxity hoax of a hoax article. The constant stream of anons and new users certainly isn't helping. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euthanize. Were this presented as a factual article on why the creation of this "animal" is notable, then it could survive; as it is, this article serves only as vanity and promotion for the radio show and its hosts. I very nearly speedied it as a recreated speedy until I came here and saw all the sockp— er, sorry, editors recommending a (brief) keep for no apparent reason. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, target for vandalism. NawlinWiki 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Most of the article is obviously hoax information added to make the joke continue. If -- but not until -- this joke gains serious traction (much like the FSM) will it be appropriate to have an artcle on it, and only if it makes it clear that this is a joke. Until then, this is crystal-ball-ism. eaolson 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete Sigh. Ian¹³/t 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purported subject of the article is plainly not encyclopedic and any treatment of this topic, even as a "phenomenon" (which it only would be in the most generous sense) would currently require original research. Perhaps, if the station responsible has an article, a brief mention of this event could be placed there. The article, and this debate, may qualify for WP:BJAODN, but I don't really know as I don't hang out there. --Dystopos 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is bringing people to Wikipedia for the first time. I had not edited an article on Wikipedia before this.Dr Jason Jason
(I moved this from the talk page, where it would probably have been missed.) eaolson 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia serves itself by building a useful reference, not by staging publicity stunts that undermine the quality of that work. --Dystopos 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, copying it off the talk page beats the purpose of thwarting new sock accounts via semi-protection. The vote from Jason is obviously a sock vote, considering his "first edit" in wikipedia. and lack of other activities. --Ragib 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Sorry, I didn't notice the semi protection at the time; I thought it was just from a newbie editor who didn't know where to properly comment. Just because the Dr Jason Jason is continuing this joke article that is a waste of everyone's time doesn't necessarly mean he is a sock puppet for another user. I'm trying to assume good faith. It's becoming difficult, but I'm trying. Can't we just delete this annoying article, already? eaolson 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to assume bad faith, but does anyone else think it's odd how many people want to "keep it for a little longer"? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Since it's fairly obvious the majority simply don't like the article, I suggest a compromise of merging it with Jay and the Doctor. From there it can be pared-down to appropriate size by the contributors. It would be a shame for the material to be deleted out of a lack of humour, as many wiki pages exist for other made-up creatures. Jr78 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are documented made-up creatures, that one can find discussed in books and journal articles. This made-up creature is not. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Uncle G 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if a Wikipedia entry is created more or less directly from a culture with a strong oral tradition, would that be considered invalid due to lack of documentation? Yes, I'm aware it's not exactly the same thing, but I would appreciate some clarification on this. Next, if the Mini Mammoth becomes a "cultural phenomenon" in the next couple of weeks, appearing in magazines and such, would the page be allowed to be un-deleted? Culture is fluid, and moves quickly in modern society. Also, as an aside, Wikipedia's "Feature Article" for today is Bulbasaur. Oh ya, that's some SERIOUS subject matter right there.Jr78 01:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bulbasaur is part of a MAJOR franchise for one. This again is a joke from a radio show. I can think of NUMEROUS gags from radios shows that don't have articles, why should this one. As to your other point, I agree if this fad takes off, then yes undelete, but honestly i see this dying off in a number of days. Wildthing61476 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, if this phenomenon became a cultural phenomenon, I would support the article's existence. But WP is not a crystal ball. We can not have articles written on the assumption that their subject will become such a cultural phenomenon. Phenomenon first, article second. eaolson 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • invalid due to lack of documentation? — Yes, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Writing about something that is part of an oral tradition is the creation of primary source material. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The route to having an article is for subject matter to be the subject of articles outside of Wikipedia first. Many fictional creatures have been the subjects of numerous books, articles, documentaries, and so forth over the years. That is the point at which they have become a documented cultural phenomenon. This fictional creature isn't even documented by its own inventors. Uncle G 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you still don't understand the point, go and look at Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references. Uncle G 09:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP if pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Bear that are still in the wiki why? can we keep this and file it under radio jokes under triplej and the jay and the doctor show i think wikipedia should wiki jokes becasue in 50 years time people can look back and see what the humor was like in 2006 becasue humor is part of our history aswell, but i do agree this needs to be filed in a better place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthrox (talk • contribs)
    • User's 2nd (out of 2) edit. --Ragib 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you read the Drop Bear article, you can see that the creature has been mentioned in a 1988 books by Terry Pratchett (a famous writer), a commercial, and has been the namesake for a band in the early '80s. None of this can be said for the "Mini Mammoth". Drop Bears are notable. Mini Mammoths are not. Your "logic" seems to be: The Drop Bear is a fictional Australian creature; so is the Mini Mammoth. The Drop Bear has a Wikipedia article; so should the Mini Mammoth. Doesn't work. ... discospinster talk 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: this is cruft, a soapbox, and communicating with wikipedia. its also trash --Musaabdulrashid 01:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the article the remove all of the unverifiable crap from it. For now, it is a somewhat useful article but it stills isn't a notable cultural phenomena. Now if only we can keep the vandals at bay. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This paragraph "The idea has gained large support from the show's listeners, many of whom have contributed to this entry. It should be understood that most if not all of the following is an attempt to answer Jay and the Doctor's question, and should be understood as satire and not a malicious hoax." Shouldn't even be there. The last part should also be removed with no citation if you want to call it reasonably cleaned up.--Crossmr 03:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, though perhaps redirecting to Jay and the Doctor to discourage recreation wouldn't be a bad idea.--Chaser T 03:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can I second Chaser's idea above? Megamanic 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in its unedited form. What's everyone getting so upset about? As long as it has the "Hoax" tag at the top, I see no problem with the article - it attracts new contributors and viewers. It's just a joke anway, and is hurting no one. Is anyone likely to stumble on the article and mistakenly think its factual? No. Particluarly with the hoax tag. I care as much about factual content and citing sources in wikipedia as any editor, but this is not the place to be worried about such things. I'm not game to revert TheFarix's changes myself, but I would support anyone who did. --BrettRob 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I've attempted to make this a semi-legitimate article as possible under the circumstances, which may give it a very slight chance to survive an AfD. Also, do read the following policies that his article runs afoul of, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and the guideline WP:HOAX which states that content that is a hoax is vandalism and must be removed. Having the hoax tag applied does on make the article "all right". --TheFarix (Talk) 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'm going to contradict myself here - I don't actually think this article is a hoax, because it is not a genuine attempt to deceive people. It's just a joke. It's obviously a joke. Perhaps if we had a tag that said: "This article is a JOKE. It should not be taken seriously in any way." this might solve the problem - everyone would be happy. Joke articles should not be subject to the same standards of vandalism as other pages. In fact, if they attract vandals away from the serious pages, all the better. Think of it like a graffiti wall. Just a thought. I realise I'm fighting an uphill battle here. --BrettRob 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day++ --Richmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it gets notable, then you can write a genuine article. Which will probably be more than just a silly joke from JJJ (not that there's anything wrong with that)--ZayZayEM 09:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, for a while I was listening to this play out on TripleJ yesterday, and it was clear that the joke was not the hoax itself, but the fact that the wikipedia could apparently be manipulated so easily, and still appear to be a 'legitimate source' to the uninformed. As such, it probably belongs in something like Encyclopedia Damatica rather than the Wikipedia. I was unable to hear what the comments were this morning, however I think a speedy deletion would just confirm that the joke worked. Keeping it as is (for a while) shows that while spurious material can turn up in the wikipedia, there is also a review process at work as well - User:LauraSeabrook 8:34pm 28 July 2006 (GMT+11)
    • Wait, I'm really not getting the logic here. Keeping a non-notable, unverifiable joke article would prove that Wikipedia has a working review process while deleting it wouldn't. How does that work? --Daduzi talk 11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was wondering that myself. ViridaeTalk 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1 hour after the article was created, it was tagged with "Prod". Less than 1 1/2 hour after it was created, it was marked as AfD [2]. How an article which states that it is "being considered for deletion" can fool an uninformed into thinking it is a "legitimate souce" is beyond me. The "joke" did not work and is gone beyond lame a long time ago. Fram 11:31, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mini_Mammoth&oldid=1220911080"