This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Reptilian humanoid.
Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.
The article was kept as there was no clear consensus to delete: approximately 6 votes to delete, 1 abstain, 1 unclear, 7 keep (though of those 2 were anon and one was later blocked)
- Reptilian humanoid: This article is complete nonsense. It was put here by the loop Khranus, who has now been banned, but has left this, among other idiotic articles, behind. Various people have tried to "NPOV" it, but that just makes it even siller, because now it mostly consists of statements to the effect that "no-one has ever verified that reptilian humanoids exist." The article doesn't contain one single positive statement that anyone seriously believes they do exist, and in fact I think the article was nothing but a piece of trolling provocation by Khranus. I have tried to ridicule it out of existence (Arborealoids), but it is still hanging around making WP look silly. Can we get rid of it? Adam 14:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- At least as it exists, this article is borderline, to say the least. A lot of it is spent on animals that are not purported to be humanoid, and a lot of the rest is just a mass of statements going way beyond equivocation. Radical, radical editing to restrict to real reptilian humanoids (if any exist, or exist in legend or myth), but I am leaning towards a vote for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Reptilian humanoids is also sumthing in Dungens And Dragons that is how much I no about it. 22.214.171.124 14:50, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Absolute delete. This is the kind of article that will bring this place into disrepute. It just isn't possible trying to NPOV such a subjective load of half-baked nonsense. Bmills 14:53, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I think it might be possible to make an interesting and useful article about the conspiracy theory and the theorists - David Icke is quite prominent, after all. So abstain. Morwen 14:58, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Marginal - there may be an article in this somewhere, and some of the info in this article may be relevant to that, but this certainly isn't the article if Wikipedia is to be a reputable source of information. Delete, and if anyone wants to do a new article they should take a copy before it goes. Onebyone 15:05, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Painful as it is, I think this should probably stay. There are enough nutters around who believe this stuff that they deserve an article. However we could also move the info into other articles. However to stay someone has to find out who actually really believes this stuff. Currently I don't even believe the list of people who believe in it. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep; copyedit it to include "conspiracy theory" and "fictional" accounts; I have heard of fringe discussion about this (not that it's true, but it is a widely known topic in "crank" circles). "The crackpot"
- This is 1 kind uv article that I think you shud keep; evin if is nonsense -- 126.96.36.199 21:20, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Now that is an inspiring testimonial - Marshman 23:22, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete, makes Wikipedia look like a laughingstock. -- Fuzheado 23:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 01:54, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. It's as legit as Klingons or Greys; that is, it's about a real fiction. I've rewritten the intro to make it a bit more "respectable". -- VV 06:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- still a little problematic, but it's now dekhranised enough to begin looking like a real article. Keep. Kosebamse 13:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It now says that it is reporting on fringe and unproven ideas. It can't be worse than the List of fictional cats, surely?188.8.131.52 18:27, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- This now looks like one of many articles on mythology. It needs development, but there's no need to delete it. Keep. -- Miguel
- Keep. This article gives a quality summary of the topic. It is entertaining and informative. Kingturtle 00:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
end of archived debate