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 no consensus. Two camps have appeared in this discussion, one for delete and another for keep. While I find arguments of both sides relevant, this AfD was indeed started just after the previous one has ended. What I suggest is to leave the article two or three months to develop and then nominate it again, should it look necessary. After some time, it will be much clearer what to do with the article but we aren't moving anywhere here so it's a No consensus. Tone 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a fictitious person, and the associated hoax. The hoax itself appears to have zero references from WP:RS. The only reference to a WP:RS provided in any version of this page was to a reference to the "Last American Pirate" website, which fails to meet WP:WEB, and at no point refers to the hoax itself. The rest of the information in the article (inany of its revisions) is original research unsupported by reliable independent sources. Delete per WP:DENY, WP:WEB and WP:OR -- we do not build temples to non-notable Wikipedia vandalism The Anome (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment I'm sympathetic to the initiator of this process, but this page just underwent and survived deletion process. Starting another AfD immediately seems like a poor idea, and a bad faith nom. And per other stuff exists, apparently we DO build temples to non-notable Wikipedia vandalism (see Encyclopedia Dramatica). This page is a hoax, and is identified as such. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ED passes the notability criteria just fine: this is not an issue here. The qustion not addressed by the previous deletion process is simply this: does that article pass the WP:V and WP:RS criteria? If not, we must delete it. AfD is not a vote or popularity contest. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except where required by law or WP:OFFICE, we are free to ignore all rules. Remember, policies and guidelines come out of historical practice not the other way around. Of course, if we do, then this can go to deletion review. From what I understand, DRV applies to articles that survive AFD too, not just those that fail. It's just rarely used for that purpose. I'm not saying we should ignore history in this case, only that the blanket statement "If it does not pass V and RS then it must be deleted" should not be taken as law, only as a very very very strong recommendation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The real question is which article needs to pass the cited criteria? The original article (it does not), or the hoax explanation article? The latter does, I think. Eliphaletnott (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article must NOT be deleted, even though the damage has already been done. Anyone who read this article, or any reference to it, prior to the revealing
of the hoax will now have a set of false beliefs about the past. Only if a searcher returns to this article, or one derived from it, can the hoax be discovered. There remain other references to the so-called pirate, even within Wikipedia, that do not indicate that the story is false. The students may have thought what they were doing was instructive, but they quickly lost control of the information. So Wikipedia needs to retain the corrected article as at least a last resort attempt to correct the fraud and lead searchers to the truth of the matter. Eliphaletnott (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)— Eliphaletnott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: (User:Eliphaletnott appears to be a newly-created account, whose only edits have been on this issue.) Deleting and salting the page, with an appropriate talk page annotation, would have the same effect. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A passing blip on the radar, Wikipedia is not news, and I see no lasting encyclopedic notability to this. When the semester is done, this project will be forgotten about by all. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that my account is newly created does not seem relevant to the issue. As it happens, almost nothing that appears in Wikipedia is a passing blip on the radar, even if some people lose interest in it. What is notable about this particular hoax is how it was done, how it was presented, and how it was disseminated and then revealed. That is news, and important information for Wikipedia user. Edward Owens is no longer the news, nor is he notable; the events are the notable news.Eliphaletnott (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is a too-narrow reading of the criterion. The hoax story itself, I suggest, satisfies one or both of the criteria for notable news listed in the guidelines. Eliphaletnott (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a definition of notable it would have to pass, see WP:NOTE and more specifically WP:WEB. dougweller (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the original subject (EO) is not notable. Probably the class project is not notable either. But the sequence of events, I believe, was notable for multiple reasons, and was fairly widely noticed. However, the above comment by The Anome about deleting the article details but providing a link to the truth of the matter seems adequate.Eliphaletnott (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping it might discourage re-creation of the article by people who think it's real. There's a lot of ghits for the hoax, so I regard it as notable now anyway. As a mere class hoax, it wouldn't be but it's taken on a life. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might this entry be a kind of "fictious entry"? [1]Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- too soon after previous AfD. Also note I (while inadvertently logged out) added a reference from a WP:RS, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mike R (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chronicle source is sufficient to show notability. And after nonconcensus close, one is more apt to get consensus to delete if one waits at least a month or so. DGG (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hold discussion Didn't we just do this? If you feel last process was wrong go to WP:DRV. If not, give it a few weeks/months. Thinboy00 @142, i.e. 02:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable hoax unsupported by reliable sources. The Piltdown Man this isn't. —Angr 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unimportant hoax that doesn't meet even minimum standards of notability. Internet pranks don't become notable just because they occur on Wikipedia, and "it-involved-Wikipedia" doesn't mean we should relax our notability standards. - Nunh-huh 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't meet basic requirements of notability as determined by coverage in reliable, published sources. One news article does not make a famous hoax. If the hoax was actually far-reaching enough to be notable, then publications outside the education sphere would've picked it up.Steven Walling(talk) 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of independent notability, even if Streisand Effect hits wikipedia now. - 7 bubyon >t 07:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy change to Procedural Keep per outcome of too-recent-to-relist AFD. At least one major hoax article has been userfied. In this case, both the hoax and about-about-the-hoax should survive but on either User: or Wikipedia: space. If the hoax is ever notable, then the about-the-hoax article can be moved to the main article space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Updated to change to Procedural Keep. Relisting after less than 2 weeks is generally a bad idea. If you don't like the decision, take it to deletion review. Relist in 3 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One article does not equal notability. Renata (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Generally wrong venue, DR would be a better place for this. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the Chronicle grants notability. Nothing to do with WP:NOTAGAIN, however. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons of WP:OR and WP:NOTE. An Ersatz article if I ever saw one. Virginia tax payers, they're wasting your money. -- Iterator12nTalk 05:08, 13 January 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.
