Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demomotus
- 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
This is a complete joke. There never was such a person, nor any belief that there was such a person. All 87 Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors, except for a few livejournal entries written by this person: http://poormattie.livejournal.com/2002/09/23/. I find it shocking that 87 joke entries can make their way onto the Internet mirrors before anyone notices. func(talk) 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- See also the messages at the reference desk about this subject. Sietse 17:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of references. It seems this is a hoax. That sucks :(. Thue | talk 17:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Was Demomotus really a presocratic Greek philosopher? (From the reference desk)
[edit]I recently came across an article about Demomotus. According to the article, he was a presocratic Greek philosopher. The article doesn't provide any references however, and it was written by a single user who has only contributed for one day. I also couldn't find anything about Demomotus on google, except for content that (apparently) is mirrored from Wikipedia. I also can't find any references in the index of Plato's complete works, who (according to the article) was influenced by him.
Can anyone who knows more about the subject confirm that this article is not a hoax? Sietse 15:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This has a funny odor to it. A verbatim copy of this is here, although it is hard to say which came first as that has zero info about it. I suspect that site merely copied the WP article without attribution, but it could be the other way around. In any case, this article is in serious need of cleanup and verification. I added a note to Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy asking for folks more knowledgeable in the area to look at it. older≠wiser 16:02, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- This article appears to be entirely bogus. There is no mention of the subject in the online Britannica, xreferplus or The Times digital archive 1785-1985. I added a "disputed" tag. --Heron 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The "insane" tag would have been more appropriate. ("The sanity of this article is disputed.") Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of placing this on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. It is complete nonsense. func(talk) 16:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This article appears to be entirely bogus. There is no mention of the subject in the online Britannica, xreferplus or The Times digital archive 1785-1985. I added a "disputed" tag. --Heron 16:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Name is Greek/Latin "people way." The set up is the wind up to a punchline. Lempriere has never heard of him. The philosophy is supposed to be stupid, and yet it's a secret. All the marks of a joke. Geogre 21:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, a hoax; name is mixed Greek and Latin. Probably too long for BJAODN. Smerdis of Tlön 04:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Do not worry, I already included a longer piece of nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
An anon has made a major content change to the article. Earlier, I reverted it, thinking it was troll-ish, but he discussed it on the talk page, so I'm assuming good faith on his part. (and now I'm seriously going to bed) func(talk) 05:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in its current form. If the note that this is a hoax is removed, the original article may be copied back from mirrors a few months from now. By the way, the guy has almost become a kind of celebrity: 91 google hits, articles in a few encyclopedia's... It's also a good example of how Wikipedia's informal 'quality control' sometimes fails (or at least works very slow). Sietse 07:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1) I have it on my watchlist, so I will notice and delete it if it reappears. 2) It is not notable because it propagates automatically to a few mirrors. 3) If someone wants to point out that wikipedia has poor 'quality control' then he can write it somewhere outside the main article namespace. Thue | talk 08:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, so then it is not a problem that the article might reappear. I also agree that comments about the accuracy of Wikipedia are probably better made outside the main namespace (which could link to the hoax article though). But I still think that a note saying that it is a hoax is useful to people who have read the article on other encyclopedia websites and are looking for more information. Sietse 09:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I am not convinced the hoax is notable enough to keep. A google search for the name just gives wikipedia mirrors. There are no mentions at google groups. Since nobody ever mentioned him on the internet apart from wikipedia mirrors I am therefore inclined to think not many people really read it, and I am inclined to just delete it and forget it. Thue | talk 10:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, so then it is not a problem that the article might reappear. I also agree that comments about the accuracy of Wikipedia are probably better made outside the main namespace (which could link to the hoax article though). But I still think that a note saying that it is a hoax is useful to people who have read the article on other encyclopedia websites and are looking for more information. Sietse 09:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1) I have it on my watchlist, so I will notice and delete it if it reappears. 2) It is not notable because it propagates automatically to a few mirrors. 3) If someone wants to point out that wikipedia has poor 'quality control' then he can write it somewhere outside the main article namespace. Thue | talk 08:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Josh Cherry 14:32, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Somewhere, User:Nolnfo is laughing. Keep as a reminder of our weaknesses. Fishal 04:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: nonnotable hoax. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:04, 17 Oct 2004 (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.