Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brahmanical See
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. DS (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be a hoax. It has existed for several years, heavily vandalized, with no reliable sources added, with trolls attempting to throw in unreliable sources to keep it up. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it is truly a hoax, it would be Wikipedia's longest-existing known hoax of all time - longer than any of these by about a year. I'll investigate.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. Google isn't turning up much outside of Wikipedia mirrors, things like Books and Scholar don't either. I'll be willing to change my mind should references be provided to verify this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The stability of the hoax text over its life history is quite remarkable. rudra (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V and WP:HOAX. All i'm getting is entries from the millions of Wikipedia mirror sites and entries for "Brahmanical. See" or "Brahmanical, See". Doc Strange (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:HOAX, WP:NOR, etc. etc.) Zenwhat has beaten me to this. I posted some background to the Fringe Theories board, intending to wait a few days before filing the AfD. Stepping back though, in a way it's quite amusing. rudra (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball per all unless new information comes to light. I love how it tries to evade WP:N by saying that the term "has fallen into disuse." --Thinboy00 @063, i.e. 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, classic. rudra (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. Who had the honor (?) before this article? Paragon12321 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, though an impressive one. ~ priyanath talk 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Is this a joke?Bakaman 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Page should definitely be thoroughly checked. (+OMG! Zenwhat being useful) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (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.