Talk:Gnome sightings in Argentina

Is this a hoax?
I've created this article, and to the best of my knowledge it's true... though I am only going on the reports of The Sun newspaper. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Well snopes confirms it false. http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/gnome.asp Spydrfish (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is real. If you're doubtful, perhaps gnomes will visit you.

I'm scared

Not that I am suggesting that they are real, but one article on snopes is rather stupid. The "in major cites there is one rat per person" claim they quote several people that say it is true then have 1 that disagrees. I wonder which one they say is outright true? 122.105.217.62 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A Mistake?
This could be one big dumb mistake by the teens who said they first saw the gnome in the bushes. It may be easy for anyone under the influence to think they saw a gnome when it could have been a small animal or a very short human being. The video cannot be trusted in the section of "Gnome Sighting Recorded" because the mobile phone video is much to vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissmeister (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Snopes page pointing out the fact that there were two separate takes of the video, and that The sun Has done pranks before, AND that no Argentinians the person behind the site knew reported seeing the Gnome. All this leads to the fact that it was some midget prankster in with friends on recording a video to claim they saw a gnome...I though that was it and couldn't believe people believed it.Spydrfish (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The video is pretty convincing-looking. A good fakejob. Send those boys to Hollywood. Though I wonder, who would be scared of a gnome? Maybe he'll play tricks on you but assuredly they aren't out for blood.

Proposed deletion
I notice this article has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that the gnome sightings are a hoax. I would prefer to keep it and link to it from either List of hoaxes or, as it is already linked to, from List of cryptids. Although the first article also requires some work it's a useful hub. I'm also not sure that the wave of supposed sightings has stopped yet, the date given in the article of March 2008 was not long ago so it's reasonable to believe that there may well be further sightings. In a way it's like a modern version of the Cottingley Fairies and I think it's worth keeping whether or not it makes the transition from cryptid to hoax.

I propose removing the deletion tag unless anyone has any specific reasons not to. IrishPete (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should be kept, because there is no evidence that it is a hoax other than that it is quite a strange occurance. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC))