Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 16

Guide to deletion

September 16

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 22:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Dream

WP:NOT a recipe book. Do we delete cocktail recipes, regardless of notability? This one has the added bonus of apparently being an incorrect recipe, based on a google search. — brighterorange (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT book for badly named recipes. --Miborovsky 00:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ISNOT a recipe book indeed. And we don't need to unload incorrect recipes onto Wikibooks. -Splash^talk 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could you explain a notorious non-drinker why this recipe is badly named or incorrect? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just search google and compare the recipes that come up; they are mostly inconsistent, but at least they name a specific liquor (this one just says 1/2oz liquor!) and include something that might turn it golden, rather than milk. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks for the clarification. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- May be a regional variant, but I can't find anything to back that up, so I'd say it doesn't even deserve a transwiki. --Isotope23 15:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Vader (cocktail), a cocktail can be tranwikied to the bartending Wikibook, but an incorrect recipe for a cocktail we shouldn't bother. — Phil Welch 20:45, 16 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Number Shitting Bear

Even though it survived a nomination for deletion here I'm putting this article up for deletion again since there is no reasonable claim to notability and this appears to be just another internet animation. It also appears that all information on the subject is vague barring the little bit of info that you can obtain by going to the animation website. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete forgot to add right after nomninating and figured that the nom on it's own might not be counted as it's own delete vote. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous Vfd, useful for anyone looking for examples of popular internet memes. Kappa 01:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Popular" is debatable with this one. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the previous VFD had no consensus on keeping or deletion, from looking at it, it is just another flash cartoon online. Delete. Zach (Sound Off) 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known enough to be called an internet phenomenon, albeit a minor one. Stlemur 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phenomenon? Cult status? 320 Google hits? I think not. Wikipedia is not a repository for all the endless junk that floats around cyberspace. -Splash^talk 01:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's reasonably well-known (not a given in this case), that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash Derex 03:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons this nomination survived it's previous VfD attempt.--Nicodemus75 03:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this article doesn't appear to be about a particularly notable subject. It's just some web animation that a few people apparently like. Make an article when something important happens involving it. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please like liast time this is a notable article on wp:ua Yuckfoo 06:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. While "survived its previous AfD" is useful data (because the previous AfD discussion may contain persuasive arguments), it does not really constitute a reason in and of itself to keep unencyclopedic articles around. Nandesuka 11:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Correctly claims notability, and with 770 Google hits (plus a handful on Usenet), it's more deserving than some of the garage bands we've kept. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 770 hits is nothing for an internet phenomenon. Plus, like I said more than half of them are repetitive. Note that this applies particularly to things with fewer than 1000 hits in the first place: Google reports unique hits in the first thousand, so Wikipedia starts out with millions, but appear to finish up with a few hundred. This is because Google isn't checking through the other 113 million. If a topic starts out with fewer than 1000, then the unique search finds them all. This has 320 useful Googles, and that is nowhere close to what an internet phenomenon should have. -Splash^talk 13:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it is only 320 hits. My mistake! However, since it is surviving the test of time, and has (slightly) more merit than most nonsense sites, I'd rather keep it. Being a Number Theory guy, though, I am possibly biased. :) Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - To say it's surviving the test of time is a bit of a misnomer I think, the only thing it's done to "survive" is not get AfD'd again until now. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - In "surviving the test of time" I meant generating interest for four years, as seen on Usenet and such, not just surviving the previous AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal delete. I don't think this is notable, but I could be convinced otherwise, I guess. Everyking 13:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'd never heard of it, and if longcat is so terribly worth deleting, this sure as hell is KeiKusanagi 13:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per longcat. A page for every amusing forwarded email in the world? Vizjim 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa. I've heard of it and a replication of it is a good basic project for newbie programmers. ;) splintax ^(talk) 15:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If people keep adding drek like this, Wikipedia is going to quickly turn into a repository for every stupid java or flash animation that somebody creates and then posts on the web. That being said, this article has survived one AfD and does generate a fair number of Google hits. While my personal opinion is that it is useless drivel, I will have to say Weak Keep. --Isotope23 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that it survived an AfD is a reason to keep it. There was no consensus last time, as it was a fairly contentious "vote" then too. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this must be the first time I have seen someone call an article "drek" and "drivel" and then vote to keep it. A previous no-consensus AfD is hardly binding either way in future, surely? -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Internet meme" = "it got forwarded." Silly, transient epiphenomenon. Let it survive for two years, retain popularity, and break out into non-Internet usage. Right now, the only people who hear of it are already on the Internet, where they can see it. How is this answering questions or expanding the contexts of information? Geogre 17:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a minor internet meme. 320 unique hits is pitifull for something that can only claim it's notability on the net. WP:NOT a programming guide, nor does survival of a past AfD garuntee current notability. Especially on a medium as transitory as the net, what may appear to be the next big thing one day, in retrospect can appear nothing more than a very minor flash in the pan. --Icelight 18:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that we're even talking about it at all, when the page itself dates from 2001, says something about its "flash in the pan" status IMO. — Stlemur 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Between then and now we haven't talked about it all, though. -Splash^talk 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not "surviving the test of time", it's abandoned -- last updated in 2003, promising to move to a domain which is now owned by a squatter. And it's no meme -- there's no body of derivative works like you'd see with goatse, badgers, or All Your Base. The bear is dead, let it rest. — mendel ☎ 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial, nn Internet meme. MCB 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as in the earlier no-consensus vote when this was VfD instead of AfD. No indication of increased significance. Not mentioned by either Republicans or Democrats in 2004 elections. (US-centric bias!!) I agree with Mendel and MCB. Show me any impact on the planet except letting people waste their time. Barno 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's apply some modus tollens to this. If the Prime Number Shitting Bear is a notable internet meme, it would have thousands of google hits. The Prime Number Shitting Bear does not have thousands of google hits. Therefore, we can conclude that the Prime Number Shitting Bear is not a notable internet meme. — Phil Welch 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn meme, nonsense. Voting "keep because I've heard of it" is no more acceptable than "delete because I've never heard of it". User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An "internet meme" with only 320 Google hits isn't successful. For comparison, various permutations of AYBABTU get upwards of two million hits. --Carnildo 21:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn foolishness. Fawcett5 21:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Eric119 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Carnildo. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, 59% delete votes (11 keep/19 delete/2 merge) in the previous VfD does not make a keeper. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Splash. Coll7 01:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Delete If it truly were notable I'd think the article would be able to actually describe the notability. Maybe in a wiki devoted to web humor, but not for a general purpose encyclopedia. Caerwine 04:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of it myself. And I get forwarded all manner of nn garbage. Sabine's Sunbird 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally insignificant internet meme. This is just a flash animation, not a phenonemon. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - if someone really cares, they could merge it into a List of Minor Internet Memes, where we could then argue about it there. But there's no way that it needs it's own article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete it's hardly badger badger badger --TimPope 11:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TimPope, Tuf-Kat, Carnildo.Dpbsmith (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with wanton lust. A sizeable majority votes to delete this nonsense and people claim it's an obvious "keep"? Laughable. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I honestly cannot imagine why anyone would want to delete an article like this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...what about all the reasons listed above with delete votes? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "nn" is not a reason. Grue 17:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, none of the reasons given above is a reason for deletion according to the deletion policy. Minor branches of a subject that don't merit an article on their own are merge candidates. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again and again. Don't let it turn into another GNAA. Grue 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. It should be possible to speedy this kind of page. Martg76 18:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as before. -Sean Curtin 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hang it's organs on the Main Page to warn away others of it's kind - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous VfD. No sensible reason to delete. —RaD Man (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous VFD is no consensus, not keep. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every single flash animation in the world is notable. --redstucco 09:34, 20 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE--Doc (?) 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bixby

I don't believe this group meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. The "article" is closer to an advertisement. Joyous (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:music. No allmusic.com article. The top article on a search for Bixby band was for a marching band based in a town called Bixby although there are some hits for this band including this article see [1]. They have got an album to their credit but no evidence of it charting or having a significant critical impact. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnbv as above. Since the album doesn't appear to have charted, they'd need at least two of them to meet WP:MUSIC. -Splash^talk 01:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would think of Bill Bixby first and Bigsby tremolo bars second and Blixa third. No record contract, no distribution, no notability at this point. At least it's a C&W band and not another deththrashneumetalfunk. Geogre 18:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will the closing admin please note that there is an image in this article that should be posted at WP:IfD as an orphan as soon as we delete this? Thanks. — Phil Welch 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If this is deleted (and it will be), move Bixby (disambiguation) to this location. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 19 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP--Doc (?) 22:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London Season (The Real World)

Why should this not remain on Wiki? Let me count the ways...

It was not the first or last season or a non-notable show.
It produced no persons of note (other than Jacinda Barrett, who has her own page).
It was not a 'groundbreaking' show in its concept or execution.
Er...that's it...Delete Eddie.willers 00:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a whole TV season is even more notable than a single episode. "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." wiki is not paper. Kappa 01:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--TV shows, watched by hundreds of thousands if not millions, are notable--the entire season certainly deserves an article. Meelar (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it's definately notable; comment: the naming convention is exceedingly odd. Why London Season (The Real World) instead of The Real World (London)? RasputinAXP talk * contribs 03:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The naming convention is odd, but it follows the convention used on The Real World article. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure. The Real World's a popular show. Everyking 13:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It needs a cleanup and I agree the naming convention should be changed to The Real World (London). If nobody cleans this up in a reasonable time period I'd say it should go for AfD again. On the merits of notability, I'd say it stays though.--Isotope23 15:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and popular show. In fact, it is MTV's most popular television show series. See Wikipedia's Nielsen_Ratings article: "Top 15 Cable Series, July 4-10" subsection. Each season has a different settings and cast members. Yes, the article should be renamed "The Real World (London)" just like the other Wikipedia's Real World subarticles. --J. Nguyen 19:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did the cleanup. The move of this article needs to wait until after the AfD. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, grudgingly. It's crap, but it's notable crap by Wikipedia's quite liberal standards (Not to complain, of course...). — Phil Welch 20:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we can have an article on every single episode of nn shows, an article on a single season of a show is keepable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we an excess of TV-cruft, it's hardly reasonable to add more.
Keep. Mike H (Talking is hot) 22:28, 18 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ria Fulton

Fake bio, asserts notability, verifiably false -- neither Philip Glass nor John Cage are secretly a Bostonian woman named Ria Fulton Jkelly 00:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Born in 1982, won a Pulitzer Prize for a New Yorker article in 1986. Rest of article continues in similar vein. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, I read the New Yorker article, and it was phenomenal and enlightening. Her insights into the connection between Clueless and the Velvet Revolution were bold and thought-provoking. I can't believe anyone would dare consider this article for deletion. Gerald Freugel, Ph.D., Jonathan O. Millner Professor of Government, Swarthmore College
- Entry from 152.23.189.3
- Sorry, Swarthmore's website doesn't know you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax Derex 03:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously you all were not at symphony hall to hear Fulton’s virtuosic performance of the Korngold Concerto. Check out the Boston Globe’s review. Heifetz, who sent the concerto back to Korngold calling it unplayable, sat in the audience and listened incredulously as his student mastered the piece’s demanding technical elements while handling the delicate melodies with style and flair. It is ignorant of you to dismiss Fulton so quickly. I believe she is one of the greatest musicians of our time as well as an insightful social theorist. –George Thkanhktopsis, Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Chicago.
- When did this supposedly happen? There is no "Ria Fulton" in the Boston Globe's online archives. And there is no "George Thkanhktopsis" (and what language is that name supposed to be?) at the University of Chicago. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Entry from 152.23.96.149
Comment. Was a requested article as a journalist although a quick Google did not show any reason why. No change of vote from delete. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capitalist, I am aware of Google's limitations when it comes to such geniuses as Ria Fulton. Her works are highly undocumented because of her largely reclusive personality. Don't scorn her for her tortured brilliance. Google does not a hero make. Francis Phuerter, Director, Julliard School of Music
- Entry from 152.23.189.3
- Francis Phuerter, huh? Do they call you Frank? Frank Phuerter? And Julliard's website doesn't know you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. North Carolina's tax dollars at work.[2] -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax Tuf-Kat 06:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely absurd assertions, hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete--bodnotbod 08:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as hoax, people don't get Pullitzer prizes when they're 4 years old. If she is in fact a recluse and her life is highly undocumented as claimed, this isn't verifiable anyway. If someone can write a real verifiable article on the subject, I'm not opposing it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 10:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BJAODN worthy this ain't. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 11:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this boring hoax. Vizjim 12:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia may be the only way to expose the world to Fulton, although what is known about her amazing life may be in cryptic form, wikipedia's open editing has allowed everyone to contribute his own piece to the puzzle. Johnny Stephenson, North Carolina Historian.
- Can you give us some works you've written, Johnny? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We noted a typo which has most likely been causing a lot of confusion... Fulton was born in 1952, not 1982. And the references to Phillip Glass and John Cage were meant metaphorically, of course. Hope this clears everything up. - James Wannamaker, Director of Folklore and English Studies at Boston College
- Funny, Boston College's website has no mention of a James Wannamaker. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Creative writing exercise. Plenty of hoax votes throughout this AfD I see. — RJH 15:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax, Sockpuppet supported (North Carolina Research and Education Network). At least one of the sockies had a NC sig...--Isotope23 15:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfunny hoax. The sock author should go play outside. Geogre 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You’re not supposed to scare away new users by calling them childish. I took Fulton’s class at Sloan, The Laguna Beach Love Triangle and Communism. She was very secretive; she lectured from behind a screen and used some sort of voice modulator. Nevertheless her insights were profound. Today’s culture is not taken seriously by many modern scholars; it is refreshing to see Fulton’s open-mindedness showcased here on Wikipedia.

Keep At the opening of Memorial Hall in Chapel Hill this weekend (September 10, 2005) Itzhak Perlman spotted a member of Fulton’s entourage, Nat Shelness, in the audience. During intermission Perlman approached Shelness and asked about Fulton, who was listening to the concert from the Royal Box. Perlman was admitted to the box and invited Fulton to perform. Reluctantly, Fulton agreed to perform Bach’s Double Concerto. Fulton performed from behind a screen. Leonard Slatkin dropped his baton in amazement during the first movement. Fulton’s papers are kept under lock and key, they will be published posthumously at her request, at the Southern Historical Collection in the Wilson Library at UNC-Chapel Hill. She is also discussed at length in one of Gerald Moore’s autobiographies, of course he doesn’t refer to her by her name. -Dylan Roberts, Poet Laureate of the Judith Oakley Institute for the Advancement of the English Language.
- Hm. Nat Shelness seems to be yet again another student in Winston-Salem, in the same high school class as Ria Fulton. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, as hoax. All these sockpuppets are freaking me out. Sdedeo 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these people who stay inside all day and watch the Fulton page are freaking me out. Keep your comments objective Sdedo.
Keep I am writing a book on the folklore and mystery surrounding Fulton’s life. My agent is in contact with Simon and Schuster, Little, Brown, and Bantam. The book should be published at the end of the year under the title, Fulton: A Life Under Glass. I am also preparing an article for Harper’s on Fulton. Walter G. Pressman, III, Project for the Appreciation of Innovative Thinkers, Amsterdam.
- Zero Google hits for "Project for the Appreciation of Innovative Thinkers", or for "Walter G. Pressman". User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did none of you read Fulton's "A Call for Pacifism" in The New York Review of Books? I'm frankly appalled. -Dada45
- User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously reality.
Delete. Funny, but the Pulitzer Prize website makes no mention of this lady as having won their prize in 1986 or any other year. And all Google hits for her seem to indicate that she is, or at least was in 2004, a high school girl in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that four of the above supposedly diffrerent people have all edited from User:152.23.189.3, which is assigned to North Carolina Research and Education Network. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m still crying from Fulton’s performance at Memorial Hall. Thad Thompson.
- Another editor from the 152.23.xx.xxx range. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took Fulton's class at Sloan, The Laguna Beach Love Triangle and Communism, she is a brilliant woman.

Delete. No mention on Pullitzer Prize website. Assumed to be a hoax. Down with the sockpuppets. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has speedied this page yet? The patience of Wikipedia passes comprehension. Oh, no, I see Ryan Delaney did speedy it. It's a recreation of a deleted page, wow. Thank you all for the amusing hoax votes, but they're getting a little repetitious, and the article itself isn't frankly that amusing. I'm speedying the page .... NOW, and removing it from the AFD page. Time to go list it on Votes for undeletion, and create a funny Request for arbitration on me. Thank yer, thank yer! Bishonen | talk 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]