Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock mites

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.

Rock mites

The result was Delete. jimfbleak 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected hoax; there are no sources, and no google hits for the given species name Damalinia sedementaria. A google search for "rock mites" (acarina OR acari) yields 15 results, none of which are pertinent. The article is poorly written and scientifically incorrect in several ways ("lice-like arachnids" is silly, since lice are insects and therefore unlike arachnids, which are definitely totally unrelated). Other parts of the article are odd or make no sense ("once the eggs are laid the mother of the eggs expires", "eggs will only hatch on hair, fur, or rock"). IronC hris | (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, lice aren't arachnids, Damalinia sedementaria gets zero ghits, a Rock-mite is a ham radio transciever. Tubezone 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Completely unverifiable. Note that hoaxes are not speedy candidates. -- Whpq 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's a matter of circumstance, if it's obvious nonsense or vandalism, then an article can (and they often are) be speedied. Tubezone 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Perhaps, but CSD:1 does explicitly state that a hoax does not fall within the meaning of patent nonsense. Personally, think a hoax should be speediable, but that's not what the policy is currently. -- Whpq 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not all hoaxes are patent nonsense, but I think this one is. And, in practice, the vast majority of hoaxes that make it to AfD are either G1'd or G3'd. Tevildo 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a string of words that don't scream nonsense at first blush but are, nevertheless.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1. It lasted this long?! --Dennisthe2 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it is not "patent nonsense". I have removed the speedy tag. Patent nonsense is defined in the criteria for speedy deletion as, "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Please note that hoaxes are not patent nonsense as defined for speedy deletion. -- Donald Albury 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very obvious hoax. -- Donald Albury 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia ---- Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding silly jokes to existing articles is considered vandalism. So it's speediable as a G3, or WP:SNOW, right? Tubezone 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Its not G1 (patent nonsense), but it is G3 (compromise[s] the integrity of the encyclopedia), as per Tubezone. Serpent's Choice 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not comfortable speedying this as "pure vandalism". If another admin wants to do so, I won't object. -- Donald Albury 12:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understandable, and were I an admin, I'm not entirely sure that I would either ... in the long run, the deletion-speed of hoaxes and what is considered "pure" vandalism under CSD G3 versus vandalism without an adjective under WP:VANDAL is something that will have to be approached by the community. Serpent's Choice 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax or nonsense, its going to be deleted. --Eqdoktor 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article. Absolutely no references in medical sources. The only "rock mites" I found were:

here and even then that's nothing to do with this. --SunStar Net^talk 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 Obvious hoaxes can be speedily deleted as vandalism. Since this article calls rock mites arachnids, they cannot be related to lice, which are insects. However, this article states that they are related to lice later on in the article. Therefore, this is an obvious case to anyone who has had high school biology. Jesse Viviano 15:50, 13 January 2007 (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.