Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggleberry

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 Delete both articles per G3 Hoax. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggleberry

Contested prod. IMO this is almost speedyable as nonsense, but is just coherent enough to bring it over for discussion. Patent hoax. – iridescent 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I'm also adding Eggle-Berry for its similarity. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you might also want to include Eggle-Berry, created by User:PoisonCamel at about the same time his earlier Eggleberry was speedy deleted as vandalism. A possible sockpuppet? No googlehits for eggleberries, only non-related references to eggleberry. No connection I can see with this obscure film. (edit conflict) Benea (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Delete - nonsense, no assertion of notability, no references for its content (the refs are for berries in general), no context to link it to the film it purports to come from, and the only "Glen or Glenda" film I can find is 1953, not 1975 as this article states. The article itself is inconsistent, stating this is a food made by mixing eggs and berries, then it mentions DNA transformation of birds so they lay these types of eggs. In short, there's nothing in this article that actually looks encyclopedic. Frank | talk 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion as a hoax article. No references are cited in this article and a Google search comes up with nothing. The 1975 Glen and Glenda mentioned in this article is also a hoax per Frank. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD#G3 Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - complete codswallop. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have proof that eggleberry exists and have added a citation so please would you stop accusing my article of vandalism of the nature of G1, speedy vandalim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentKB (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (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.