Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong Vs. Jaws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 speedy delete - obvious hoax. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- King Kong Vs. Jaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I believe this article is a hoax. I can't find any information on IMDB, and can't find the information on the site of Universal pictures, to which a link is supplied as a reference either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and BJAODN:
This was speedy deleted earlier today.Flea as voice capture for shark? -Carados (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment it was deleted per: 'A bit of A7, A1 and a dash of WP:IAR. No prejudice to recreation if some facts can be found and referenced.' I wouldn't know how to tag for that. (not that I disagree with deleting this one fast, it seems like a full blown vandalism hoax. but then again, there is some pretty out there stuff, that turns out true (or more importantly, verifiable). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, that is the exact reason, but it did come about from a speedy deletion tag.-Carados (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, it's a Spielberg produced, Peter Jackson directed, Tom Cruise starring film in pre-production and absolutely no sources or news hits. In the real world, that is a tad unlikely. Ummm, first time I think I have ever said this, but let it snow. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has been deleted here. --Phirazo 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, that is the exact reason, but it did come about from a speedy deletion tag.-Carados (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it was deleted per: 'A bit of A7, A1 and a dash of WP:IAR. No prejudice to recreation if some facts can be found and referenced.' I wouldn't know how to tag for that. (not that I disagree with deleting this one fast, it seems like a full blown vandalism hoax. but then again, there is some pretty out there stuff, that turns out true (or more importantly, verifiable). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If you start making up titles for crossover films, you will get to this one fairly quickly. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not, it fails notability guidelines on films. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax, funny as it may be. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I gotta admit, the thought of Andy Serkis and Michael Balzary as the "voices" for King Kong and for Jaws made me laugh. Kind of like a live action Jabberjaw. Mandsford (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Hoax. It's just too unbelievable. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the company getting the contract for Kong's waterwings would be made for life. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. JJL (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Althopugh hoaxes are not criteria for speedy, my originaial rationale (above) when I deleted still stands. I'd say speedy, but It's best to let this run it's course. Pedro : Chat 08:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is embarrassing. It is articles such as this that bring Wikipedia's reputation for veracity into question. I can't believe this hasn't been speedied. Jeffpw (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I proposed one, there is no speedy deletion criterion for this kind of articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a malicious hoax that was already speedily deleted, and 5VH9 (talk · contribs) should be blocked for continuing to write out lies. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a clear hoax with no verifiable sources and an unfathomable premise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As hoax. From what i can tell, 5VH9 is a big hoax creator--B5JH (talk) 02:04, 7 December 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.