Deletion of Mini Mammoth

Comment: or alternatively move to  or Uncyclopedia though that is probably out of the question due to licensing). This is no doubt a hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: Wikipedia is not your personal blog or personal webspace. It's an encyclopedia and we have standards to uphold and in this case: Wikipedia:Notability_criteria|notability criteria and Wikipedia:Verifiability. What you newcomers have to understand is that those of us on the AFD team will not be persuaded by appeals to our sense of fun/humour or blatant |sockpuppetry like we are seeing now. Anyone who has only created a new account in the last few days or has not made any significant contributions to other articles '''WILL BE IGNORED''' in this discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: The purported subject of the article is plainly not encyclopedic and any treatment of this topic, even as a "phenomenon" (which it only would be in the most generous sense) would currently require original research. Perhaps, if the station responsible has an article, a brief mention of this event could be placed there. The article, and this debate, may qualify for , but I don't really know as I don't hang out there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: Most of the article is obviously hoax information added to make the joke continue. If -- but not until -- this joke gains serious traction (much like the FSM) will it be appropriate to have an artcle on it, and only if it makes it clear that this is a joke. Until then, this is |crystal-ball-ism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: There is no possible way this subject is notable, and most of the people urging "keep" here do not seem to understand Wikipedia standards regarding , and have offered no valid Wikipolicy-based reasons for their position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: original research, based on a news item or not (see definition of original research: ). Also, while Triple J / Jay and the Dr aren't commercially motivated, they do appear to be quite desperate for entertaining content. Stick to your strong points gentlemen, music, not humour. As to promoting Wikipedia, is that a legitimate reason to keep an article? Many other reasons are given as to why this is against Wikipedia policy. Why make an exception? To the poster above, keeping this sort of conent is what destroys Wikipedia's "legitimacy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I've attempted to make this a semi-legitimate article as possible under the circumstances, which may give it a very slight chance to survive an AfD. Also, do read the following policies that his article runs afoul of, , , ,  and the guideline  which states that content that is a hoax is vandalism and '''must be removed'''. Having the hoax tag applied does on make the article "all right
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:HOAX)