Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box month

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Box month

PRODDed as a non-notable protologism; de-PRODDed by anon IP, possibly the article creator. This article violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:MADEUP, has no real world notability, and is also an example of blatant WP:SOAP with such declarations as "This rare event calls for celebration throughout the month and the necessary spread by word of mouth." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also like to include, for your reading pleasure, the comment left by the creator on the article's Talk page:

The Box Month is a special rare occasion that occurs more infrequently than a leap year. It is the union of geometric simplicity and man-imposed time keeping with the calendar. Such rare instances of simplicity within a social construct should be noted and spread to the masses..

And there we have it. This article has been created to spread word of his discovery to the masses. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should have been speedied as nonsense. andy (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd considered that. I just didn't think it was a blatant enough example for CSD G1. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I agree, this is pure nonsense. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-enyclopedic, non notable and original research. Clear delete, should be a speedy criteria for WP:MADEUP but oh well, probably will be snowballed anyway. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:MADEUP had been a criteria for speedy deletion, I most certainly would have done so. But if you look at WP:CSD, hoaxes, neologisms and OR are not criteria for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only tagged it with the original prod because I couldn't find a speedy category it fell under (e.g., hoaxes, OR, protologisms, obscure, no sources, etc). It needs to go, one way or another. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Camw (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2009 (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.