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 close and delete per overwhelming consensus that this is an elaborate hoax. I'll be listing the "tuba" images that are not otherwise used at WP:IfD and issuing a strong warning to the apparent primary perpetrator of the hoax, User:Yeanold Viskersenn. Sandstein 09:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba (mythology)

[edit]

Appears to be an elaborate hoax, the references in the article do not appear to be legit, see talk page for this article for a discussion of the references and images on this page. Also see Mongolian Death Worm for a cryptid of this region with better, albeit somewhat iffy, references. Tubezone 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. I'm sure that the author has a successful career in creative writing to look forward to, though. :) Tevildo 01:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly BJAODN simply because of the amount of effort that obviously went into it. FiggyBee 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just an elaborate hoax. TSO1D 02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Unlike most hoax situations, the article creators and contributors have lots of good-faith edits. Has anyone contacted them about this article or the nomination? Newyorkbrad 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a valid point, although many of the edits were mere cleanup (it's not unusual for editors to clean up articles that they don't suspect are hoaxes), I tossed some adw warning templates on the talk pages of the author and the people who made most of the actual contributions. Tubezone 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the nominator's conclusion, but we'll see what they have to say, whether it's adding references, or 'fessing up to some ... exaggerations. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a post on my talk page drawing my attention to this debate. I only did one cleanup edit on the article, and had never heard of the tuba before that. Having snooped around the net, I can't find any non-wikipedia-dependent citations for the tuba. The three named cryptozoologists (Coleman, Beckjord, and Zhamtsarano) appear to be legit, but I'm not sure about Chalmers. His article and other mentions of him appear to be by User:HawkerTyphoon, a major contributor to the tuba article. None of this is strictly evidence of a hoax. More suggestive evidence, however, is the fact that the "16th century painting" of a tuba with rider, displayed prominently on the tuba article, is also found on this page, only there the mount has feet. It looks to me like the "tuba" image has been modified. Geoffg 03:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything appears to be legitamate to me. Atlantis Hawk 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything appers to be legitimate unless you actually follow up on the sources. Rklawton 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BJAODN for sure. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. I've lost my sense of humour about this kind of crap on wikipedia, especially when the smartarse creators have put effort into making their vandalism as believable as possible. Especially when it means that honest websurfing citizens are fooled because they thought they could trust wikipedia. I would very much like to see punitive sanctions imposed against the article creators. I don't know why, but hoaxers hardly ever seem to get punished even when they're found out (while newbies who make 3 little repeat edit reverts are immediately pounced upon with user blocks). Bwithh 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some small smidgen of truth to the existence of a myth here, but there's so much original research, unreferenced content, and patent silliness (like the altered picture) here, it's hard to tell. Also, the existence of Realth Chalmers, (who supposedly reported the existence of the myth) has been questioned, but references to his article have not been forthcoming despite requests on the talk page. Mr. Chalmers is referred to on the first draft of this article. Tubezone 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to cut to the chase and take out the hoaxers, where there's much smoke that there's clearly fire Bwithh 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have opened an afd on Realth Chalmers. Also investigating other articles created by the same editors. ~~HMS Tapir is suspect too for instance.~~ (just needs scrubbing of tuba/chalmers infection) This better not turn out to be substantial serial hoaxing. Bwithh 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unverifiable; irrelevant sources clearly added to lend the feel of truthiness to the article. Bwithh makes a good point, yet I'm still chuckling. "The Cricket and the Tuba"? That's funny! JGardner 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong Delete, hoax. Somitho 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Please write some decent, encyclopedic articles, of course we will send this to BJAODN. Lots of crap articles nowadays, that's why we have more articles. Terence Ong 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Origins of the Hoax A nonsense article from the creator's user page history. Bwithh 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -> Speedy and shoot the author. Rklawton 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bwithh's research, the doctored picture, the faked "screenshot" from an unrelated IMDB entry (looks like 3rd grader drew it), the two-man campaign to spread this by adding it all over wikipedia (and the web)...Should I go on, or is that enough? Wavy G 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Author you wrote well but you need to do your creative writing somewhere else and stick to just the facts here. --John Lake 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN sounds like a fairy tale -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I saw this one earlier, but didn't spot it for a hoax, to my shame. I've removed references to it from HMS Tapir (P335) and Buzkashi. Several apparently different users seem to have been involved in this.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bwithh et al... SkierRMH,08:04, 17 December 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.