Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Shming-Shmang

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 Deleted as db-author. -- JLaTondre 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Shming-Shmang

Don Shming-Shmang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is no such person, which is why the "article" contains no references, and why Mr. "Shming-Shmang" is unmentioned in the 796 pages of Jean Strouses' Morgan: American Financier, a biography of his purported business associate. - Nunh-huh 02:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete "Did you mean: Shopping-Shemming?" That was what google suggested when i typed Shming-Shmang. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very Speedy Delete Hmm...WP:HOAX, WP:NONSENSE, WP:VANDALISM, WP:BOLLOCKS...so much to choose from...but I think the original contents of the article says it all:

"Don Shming-Shmang is not a real person."

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, and speedy deletion is what it needs. Calgary 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "HOAX" is a criterion for deletion, not speedy deletion, which is why I didn't speedy delete it myself. It could conceivably be speedy deleted as vandalism, but I opted to allow time for its creator to provide his "sources". - Nunh-huh 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but when blatant vandalism evolves into a hoax...and by the way, isn't it a felony to remove a deletion tag? ~|Calgary

• Speedy delete hoax this should have been speedy deleted. Oysterguitarist 32:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, hoaxes are not a justification for speedy deletion. Perhaps they should be, but they are not - in fact, on the page of speedy deletion criteria, hoaxes are specifically mentioned as not being a reason for speedy deletion. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And again, the page is blatant vandalism. When nominated for speedy deletion, the author seems to have untagged it, then added false information. This is manipulation of the system in order to give the page a longer life before deletion. And i thought Wikipedia wasn't a beaurocracy. Calgary 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You were mistaken. We even appoint bureaucrats. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, which I feel is relevant in this case. The article is only being allowed to survive the standard deletion process rather than the speedy deletion process is a technicality stemming from a series of edits made at the eleventh hour after the article had been tagged for speedy deletion. Calgary 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely and the reason behind that is that not all obvious hoaxes are real hoaxes. So now we would be waiting now the creator User:Psdubow to know about the whole story. For that i had already informed h/er. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. Hoaxes can't be speedied, unfortunately; there's too much risk for obscure and unusual topics that an editor may not have heard of. Preferably, the speedy delete votes above will be modified to fit policy, but if not, the closing admin may interpret them as delete votes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not speedy (unless as G3), but I agree it's a hoax. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dumb hoax - no such man. I had to watch a two hour film on old JP Morgan as part of an induction programme when I went to work there; rather think they'd have mentioned this chap. Bigdaddy1981 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think this article is an exercise in how many times one can say "Shming-Shmang" in an article while still sounding vaguely plausible. Deranged bulbasaur 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN since it's written in such a ridiculous yet serious tone. The initial content of the article is enough to make one realize that this isn't real, so it's not like this is sticking around... but how one then creates an advisor to J.P. Morgan out of it kind of makes me chuckle a little. - RPIRED 13:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete and/or WP:BJAODN: I am the creator of the article. I created it, because I want to see how long it would take for someone to notice it. I wanted see if people would question it, or would just leave it alone because it seemed to make sense. It was my own personal test of wikipedia's fact checking, and Wikipedia seems to have done a good job and it has past my silly little test. And if nobody noticed it within a couple of days, I would have deleted the article myself anyway. And besides, the purpose of the test, it was sort of funny too, and it gave me chuckle. Sorry for any trouble or inconvenience I caused anybody. Psdubow 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.