Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornograph

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 DELETE. WP:HOAX and fails WP:V --Madchester 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, though not patent enough for speedy deletion. --DrTorstenHenning 17:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a nn product that might not exist. AdamBiswanger1 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. This has been speedied a few times before, but lets have the AFD complete so there's no question at all of ever allowing recreation. If anyone is remotely tempted to consider keeping this, check out the alleged picture of a pornograph that accompanied earlier versions of the article. -- Fan-1967 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete take your pick; unverifiable, unsourced (reliable), nonsense, hoax, Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide, possible neologism. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:HOAX and WP:V. The only source provided ("Emily Chesley Reading Circle") yields Ghits describing the site as "parody and humor," and "hoaxes, pranks, practical jokes, frauds, tricks, and other forms of deception." Wikipedia describes the site as "a group of Canadian writers who have perpetrated a hoax." Hardly a reliable source. Scorpiondollprincess 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moeron above. Additionally, I'd like to state for the record that I thought of this pun ages ago. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And I'd like to state for the record that "graph" as a suffix has nothing to do with audio, and a pornograph, if it existed, would draw pornography, not play audio from it froma wax cylinder. Geoffrey Spear 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd buy that for a dollar... :) ~ Matticus78 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because wikipedia needs this article. 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Jimjones5
• Delete Says nothing.--Kitia 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Added sources and picture. I just added some sources and a picture. I hope this keeps this well-written article on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjones5 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I bought a computer and signed up for AOL just to find out about the pornograph. Please don't delete this page. It will make me sad :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famboy111 (talk • contribs) (Third edit from new user.)
  • Enjoy your new computer! :D --Merovingian (T, C, @) 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm seriously concerned that there might be a movement of Anti-Semetic editors out there who are constantly trying to delete, revert my edits and harass me on my talk and user pages. I don't know if all of the voters here fall into that category, or if they have just been tricked by the racists editors who have been bothering me for a week. Please change your mind and let this well-written article live. Thank you.Jimjones5 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making false accusations of racism is as bad as racism itself. That you would do such a thing in defense of a pathetic, lame joke like this article tells us a lot about what kind of a person you are. Fan-1967 22:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as WP:BJAODN. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obvious prank or hoax. No sources cited. Not funny enough for WP:BJAODN. We don't need an article on the Teleporn, either, although I see we have one on Electric organ. Why don't any of the youngsters believe me when I tell them that in the nineteen-fifties every car radio had a built-in vibrator? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is too bad this cannot be speedy deleted. RFerreira 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Obvious prank by troll editor (eg, edited Thomas Edison article to call him the inventor of the pornograph). Sheesh. Delete Image:Pgraph2 jpg.jpg and Image:Pornograph.gif at the same time. -- Infrogmation 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as obvious hoax, if WP:SNOW never applied anywhere before, it definitely applies here. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Absolutely blatantly fails WP:HOAX, page created as a prank. I think this is definitely worthy of speedy deletion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. These types who think the whole Internet's against them leave me fit to be tied. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The pornograph is a real device. As I recent college grad, I can honestly say that I have used the pornograph on numerous occasions. I have especially used the pornograph at ritzy college parties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriiik (talk • contribs) . (First edit from new user.)
  • I highly doubt that ... but if it is true, the inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Again, I highly doubt a reputable source will have anything on this subject. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 04:20, 20 July 2006 (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.