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. Sr13 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article itself is the hoax. Google is silent about an alleged organisation SAPORD and the external link don't work. -- RHaworth 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google also silent about Dr. Andrew McMillin in association to dinosaurs. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• BJAODN, if that's still around. Hoax about a hoax. Utter crap. --- RockMFR 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-This isn't even funny enough for BJAODN. Someone is just trying to see how long he can keep this nonsense alive.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creater `DinoHoax07' is probably a SPA as well.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -This article is utter rubbish and should be deleted as soon as possible. It harms Wikipedia's status as an encyclopaedia. Can you imagine Britannica (or even World Book for that matter) devoting space to every crack pot, iconoclastic view ever dreamt up? I should say not! And thank you, Iknowyourider, for pointing me in the proper direction to voice my opinion. Happy editing! CanadianMist 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - really, why wasn't this speedied? (obviosly delete)--danielfolsom 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, this is funny enough for that. Per ROCKMFR, this is a hoax about a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (or possibly WP:BJAODN, but really, it's not that funny). Hoax. --Ace of Swords 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It I do not believe this page to be fake. The idea and concept may be entirely inaccurate and foolish, but it does exist. I have read an interview with McMillin, he seems like a nut job, but he is in fact a real person who has obviously gathered some followers with his thoughts. I don't think this qualifies for BJAODN because it isn't a joke or nonsense, it's an actual view believed by some.Jordan78 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Jordan78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: There are some more examples of this sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry on the article's talk page. Iknowyourider (t c) 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete inept hoax. Dinosaurs weren't first discovered in New Jersey - Richard Owen named them in 1842 from British remains. "Macrosteoaugmentation"? Radiocarbon dating measuring the decay of bones? Radiocarbon decay being useful at all with dinosaur remains? This isn't BJAODN, this is a fever dream. If this is supposed to be funny, somebody screwed up badly. J. Spencer 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The alleged web site can not be found, & the organization give no ghits, almost unique in my experience. ( ditto for the person + dinosaurs). Satire of creationists, perhaps. I leave others to decide if it's stupid enough to meet our high standards of inclusion at BJ....DGG 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BJAODN? Doesn't stuff actually have to be funny to be added there? Masaruemoto 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Think Twice Real. Implausible, unfounded, perhaps, but nonetheless an actual scientific theory. I'm sure an encyclopedia that entertains other implausible, unfouded ideas can take no umbrage at McMillin's viewpoint. Take the Loch Ness Monster, for instance. Wikipedia states that the monster is a cryptid. Where is the reliable source for that declaration? And what of that lunar landing hoax? A viewpoint not held by the majority, to be sure, but still represented in Wikipedia. But I don't think that is the main problem that some people have with this article. The real hitch here is the thought that McMillin may not exist. But anyone with access to Thomson ISI's Web of Knowledge database can find three separate articles that at least mention McMillin. True, there's no mention of SAPORD. But H. W. Wilson's General Science Full Text database details the existence of this organization, dating back to 1984. Sometimes a simple Google search just won't do. It's that type of uninspired, insipid research that threatens this site's reputation as a viable source of information. Not articles such as Dinosaur Hoax. wbhunter 011:09, 21 June 2007 — wbhunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - nonsense, made-up hoax. andy 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if it was a notable theory (which it isn't), the title, referencing and approach of this article would still make it deletion-worthy. Malc82 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an apparent hoax of a hoax. Someguy1221 22:45, 24 June 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.