Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons

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 of the debate was delete, closing early per WP:SNOW. 26 deletes, 2 clearly valid keeps, 1 kind of fuzzy keep and a sack of falsified sock puppets make a tasty stew that serves no purpose. RasputinAXP c 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Dragons[edit]

Made-up baseball team, from what seems to be a made-up book (at least, its title gets zero Google hits).

See also 2009 MLB Playoffs (now speedy deleted and protected) and 2009 MLB Postseason (its re-creation), by the same author. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also cannot find a match on Amazon or any other book database. Unless the author provides an ISBN to prove that the book actually exists, the article should be removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just started the article and already you want to delete it? I like the watch baseball — Preceding unsigned comment added by I like to watch BasebaIl (talk • contribs) 08:35 24 May 2006

Yes. Age isn't going to make it any less bogus. --Calton | Talk 08:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Axiomm 08:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see nothing wrong with making a page about a fictional baseball team. After all, WP has dozens of articles and fictional characters or groups, etc. 205.188.117.72 09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zzyzx11 - Unfortunately not even an amusing read - Peripitus 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The page author just made the page and already you wanna delete it, let him work on it. 205.188.117.72 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree that there is nothing wrong with making a page about a fictional baseball team. However, under our policy on verifibility, we currently cannot verify that the book actually exists, and thus we cannot keep it on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence the book exists. Weregerbil 09:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would not deleting the page be bad for wikipedia? Instead of talking about how to delete the page why not try to fix and expand it? Poloyoe 09:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment expanding a hoax doesn't make it better. Per policy the way to fix unverifiable information is to delete it. Weregerbil 09:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of existence, even in a fictional book. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Zzyx11. GassyGuy 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, pages about new teams are fun. 64.12.116.69 10:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing admin, there is a serious amount of sockpuppetry going on. User:I like to watch BasebaIl is using various AOL IPs to vote. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the forgery of signatures too... the page history does not lie Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per PS2pcGAMER, not noteable and likely to be made up completely. Kyle sb 10:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- David O. 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was actually made by User:64.12.116.69 -- Kevin 10:38, 24 May 2006

Delete. Just the facts... ma'am. PJM 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:V. A fictional baseball team from an WP:NN book. RobLinwood 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the sockpuppetry isn't helping the article's case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per zzyzx11 --Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, made up, fictional. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy sweet merciful lord, get rid of this page. We already have the Devil (and the Devils). We don't need dragons, too. -- Kicking222 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And consider blocking the sockpuppet account. --John Nagle 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Devotchka 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Crum375 20:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this might constitute a WP:NFT. Article should be deleted. If its creator can prove that the book does indeed exist (provides an ISBN number) then he/she should write an article about the book iself, and not create a stub about a fictional character. Mtmelendez 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add, the ISBN would not be enough - the article would still need to show that the book was sold in at least 10,000 copies or was otherwise notable. Crum375 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, and a book can get an ISBN without actually having been published at all. I've also seen ISBNs on such unlikely things as card decks, bookmarks and stuffed animals! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Hobbeslover 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the book existed, which appears to be in question, we would still not need a separate article about the team described in it per WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page looks fine to me. Moriori. 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) User's fifth edit -- whose first edits were just above the user whose signature is forged just below. [1] Hmmm. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The account User:Moriori. was blocked indefintely as an imposter of User:Moriori. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moriori.. NSL E _(T+C) 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Vote actually by 152.163.100.69 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP. And User:NSLE didn't do it. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sock puppetry and signature forgeries aren't helping, kids. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book ain't notable (nor WP:V), so the team ain't. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional team from a fictional (as far as we can tell) book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting page. David-wright 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Users 6th edit Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Giants Statium playing surface isn't big enough for baseball anyway. Smacks of a Hoax at worst Roodog2k 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely WP:HOAX and definitely unverifiable. Gw e rnol 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hoax/unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a hoax. In reply to above: yes, having a hoax article does hurt Wikipedia, as it destroys our credibility. I just hope someone doesn't come and change my signature or something. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:34, 26 May 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.