Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathtub hoax


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, my apologies. Tokek 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bathtub hoax
non-notable. Tokek 07:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move, but not sure where. This is a notable and interesting piece of history.  The Straight Dope article, linked in this Wikipeida article, says "to this day trivia books and even a few encyclopedias perpetuate the error".  It appears to be a notable aspect of Filmore's presidency and should be preserved on Wikipedia, though probably not under this exact title. CrypticBacon 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, pretty notable factoids that still crop up occasionally. Gazpacho 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (merge to the Bathtub article as with Columbus and the flat-earther hoax) Gazpacho
 * Strong Keep, a very notable hoax. Title is just fine. Grandmasterka 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't think of any good reason to delete this. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, indeed. Deserves an entry.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think AfD should involve essay questions or anything, but it's really nice to get a sentence or two from the nominator, no? "delete, non-notable" is ... a bit vague? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable hoax. Grutness...wha?  12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and expand per above. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable hoax by notable author, and a good thing to point to as a reminder that we have to verify everything here no matter how plausible it seems. Daniel Case 15:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable hoax. --Ter e nce Ong 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Daniel Case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely notable. Kestenbaum 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as well-known hoax.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've actually read this Wikipedia article before, didn't see anything wrong with it at the time, and don't see anything wrong with it now. ergot 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep extremely worthwile (unsigned by Coinman)
 * Strong Keep perfectly legitimate for an encyclopedia. It needs a major overhaul, but should be kept. Thanatosimii 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand. After reading the external links, I've realised that it is worth keeping. To show its notability, the article should cite notable instances where Mencken's article has been quoted as fact. Since I was the only one that was pro-delete and I've now switched sides, I believe the debate has ended.--Tokek 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.