Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin tiger
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class even if they are well written. Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a hoax, however amusing or well-written it might be. Fabricationary 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Fabricationary. wikipediatrix 16:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: Due to vandalism and reversion the following comments were accidently taken out
- Noooooo please just leave it up for a week, or forever. but if anything, a week, because it is very popular among the people who created it and their friends, and it's giving Wikipedia many visitors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk •
contribs) 15:15, 8 May 2006.
- Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Ezeu 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it even admits to being something made up in school one day. —Whouk (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Giving Wikipedia many visitors"? Delete unless this article is single-handedly responsible for increasing Wikipedia's traffic by, say, more than 1%. TheProject 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia Mandarin Tiger Well, it's on Uncyclopedia now. At least they make no pretensions over the legitimacy of their articles. Wikipedia will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate source, precisely becuase of the reason that people can edit whatever they want, such as that incident with the Kennedy Assassination last year. To all of those getting your panties in a twist over a single article of just a few hundred kilobytes on the website - is Wikipedia really being harmed that much over a few lines of text about tigers? --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Chris Conway --Chris Conway 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do people care so much that it's on the site? Save unless you care enough to hurt high school kids, and rob them of a great and funny thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2006.
- Save Encyclopedia- a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. As long as the data is appropriate for all ages, it should be fine. After looking through your “deletion policies,” I have found nothing on “Mandarin Tigers” that has violated these rules. If you could be so kind to try and point them out. So far the only thing I have seen on this deletion entry is: “Wikipedia is not for things thought up in class.” Shows how well you examine things before deletion. Show me a quote where you thought that this creature was “made up in class.” Also, how do you think most scientific theories were created? Didn’t Einstein create his 4 theories while working at a patent office? And the very internet that this site depends on? Some person even went so far as to call it a hoax. I’ll just speculate that none of you have even seen Bergen, so I will rest my case that you have no idea what you are talking about.
1. Primary (original) research- The Tiger wasn’t my idea, but I did research it. 2. Original inventions- Its not my invention. 3. Critical reviews- The entry is kept strictly unbiased. 4. 5. and 6. have nothing to do with the Mandarin Tiger entry One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers- It is a fact that tigers appear at Bergen Catholic, and many people are interested in the subject. Who is a more reputable publisher then an eyewitness to every single event? A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon- Mandarin Tiger spawning are not only a piece of history for Bergen Catholic, but is a social and natural phenomenon as well. One common temptation for young editors is the urge to share new phrases, fashions, or ideas that they or their friends have invented. Writing an article on Wikipedia might seem like a great way to do this -- after all, if you enjoy this new fad, won't other people appreciate it too?- Mandarin tigers are not a fad. The entry on them does not explain how to create one in great detail, and only is listed in order to give some background. We are not encouraging people to create them, just explaining the history.
Oh and look again Hetar, I only compared them in the matter of creation if anything. Hu-hu-hook-edd on Phuhonics just isn't cutting it with you huh?AA Savage 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: not funny enough for BJAODN. If you seriously want policies that this violates, check out, Wikipedia: Not a publisher of original thought, WP:V and WP:RS. Oh, and WP:NFT too. Comparing this article to one of Einsteins theories is laughable. --Hetar 23:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Save: While the action in class was a joke, it actully happened, and this recounts the past months at school, and describes the joke itself. The page itself is not a joke, simply a recounting of something that has influenced the school. This can and may be used as a source for projects and power points describing the "Bergen Catholic Culture" If need be, we can create a page about the school's culture (Its own slang dialect, running 'jokes', our own holidays and what now and the Manderin Tiger can be a sub article of that.
CJRogers8 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.242.141 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2006.
Save if you want this deleted, prove to me how it violates the rules. and once you say something like "its not real" prove to me that it isnt real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBC08 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 May 2006.
This page is based on a factual account of an actual witness of the said "mandarin tiger" therefore in accordance with New Jersey law if this page is taken away it will be taken as a matter of harrasment towards the said "witness" and therefore the persons at fault for the deletion will be sued for the harrasment due to the deletion of the page and there by questioning and insulting te integrity and powers of observation of the said "witness" of the said "mandarin tiger". -Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius
keep the page, this is not original it is fact it is a scientific discovery that must be spread throughout the world for all to know.-Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius
However, as long as this page remains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooka the page of the mandarin tiger cannot be deleted. Otherwise Leprauchauns, aliens, pookas, unicorns or any other mythical creature with no known tangible evidence of existance MUST BE DELETED FROM THIS SITE.-Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius
THe following must be deleted if this page is deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlock , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon Peter Coyne AKA Wikipedia Patron Concerned with the unjust deletion of pages concerning pure genius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2006.
Strong Emphatic Delete unnotable neologism--Nick Y. 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It is more than debateable that if a unicorn no matter of its fame, being a mystical creature conjured in the imagination of another...a "original idea" if you will which falls under the policy of deletion as do all the topics that i gave the links to, that a mandarin tiger is a myth just the same which becasue of all in favors of deletions opinion of the topic it is in violation of the deletion policy. I propose that though this (mandarin tiger) is a myth,, your unicorns and leprechauns are just the same, and so in since the only difference between them is that you wish to delete our myth and keep another, and that ours is not as widespread in fame but then again the only way for the Mandarin Tiger to gain the reputation of the unicorn it must be spread to the public through sites such as this as a historical myth of a real place: Bergen Catholic High School case closed -Peter Coyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2006.
- Delete per WP:NFT. Unlike unicorns, leprechauns, elves, wizards, warlocks, and dragons, Mandarin tigers are not famous parts of folklore, since they were just made up last week. Anyone who votes "keep" on this is strongly advised to read WP:NFT several times until they understand it. --Metropolitan90 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I've read your "WP:NFT" and I'm pretty sure that I already proved the Mandarin Tiger entry worthy of keeping its page. Or did you just miss that? /sarcasm AA Savage 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
SaveAll those creatures are the same thing a creation from someones mind, except that they are more famous, so tell me how many people to know about a mandarin tiger does it take to get it to the level of fame needed to become a true myth? I am saying this: If this page is deleted becasue this is considered made up then the pages i listed above must be deleted becasue no matter how famouse they are they are a figment of someones immagination, unless anyone who calls for the deletion of this page can preovide more tangible evidence for the existance of a unicorn than we have for the existance of teh mandarin tiger.-Peter COyne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.99.10 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2006.
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. And yes, it will be up for one week. Grandmasterka 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Save My argument is right and whoever put up that warning at the top knows it, has nothing to say, and therefore resorts to something stupid like that.