Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead fairy 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 was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At what threshold does a hoax or meme find notability? Wikipedia describes hoax as "a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people." I am not seeing evidence that this hoax was notable beyond a single circular BBC article mentioned here http://www.danbaines.com/derbyshire-mummified-fairy. Then the question is whether or not similar articles are either notable or encyclopedic e.g. Tourist_guy? What is the consensus? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seem like a notable incident
 * https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dead-fairy/
 * https://account.charlotteobserver.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=198862434&intcid=ab_archive
 * https://londonist.com/2015/04/fortean-london-a-mummified-fairy-and-arabian-tales
 * https://www.courier-tribune.com/story/news/nation-world/2018/02/08/did-nc-man-find-skeletal-proof-that-pixies-existed/15282836007/
 * https://www.artforum.com/print/201701/women-s-history-museum-65377
 * Plus many more. Just search "dan baines" and "fairy" in Google and press the news tab. CT55555 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2022 (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.