Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dulcis foetidus


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dulcis foetidus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable single event. Initially identified on Wikipedia as a hoax until a single BBC article revealed the coverage around Dulcis foetidus to be part of a single, non-notable crowd psychology experiment. This event does not fulfill Notability. Rkitko (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to crowd psychology or delete. No lasting notability; may deserve mention as a notable example in the crowd psychology article, but I'm not even sure of that. Ucucha 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, as this was an elaborate public experiment and despite how recent it is there already exists one reliable 3rd party source about it. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have begun as a hoax article but now it is an article about a hoax. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm seeing just a single news hit on this, so it looks like it wasn't a very notable hoax. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - redirection to an article that doesn't mention it isn't helpful. If kept, there must be a better title, but it seems that it would fit better into some other page anyway. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails Notability (events), specifically lasting coverage. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability (events) says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a recent event.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into crowd psychology. Otherwise Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the plant wasnt even real! also i am concern that the scientific journal references r fake.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WT:BIOL on that. Two refs merely verify that a few other (real) plants are smelly; one verifies the meaning of the alleged native name of the plant (although it was slightly suspicious that a Brazilian plant would be named in a Canadian language); the fourth I could not access. Ucucha 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG ("significant coverage") as a hoax. First Light (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Two sources do that.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'second' source is the same BBC author as the first, this time in his blog. WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." "Multiple sources are generally expected" surely means more than two, anyway. First Light (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This was started as a hoax article on the 8th. The reported hour long lecture/experiment followed on the 15th. It was subsequently amended to be an article on the lecture. A single article in BBC Local news does not make the subject notable.--Melburnian (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not assume the person who created the Wikipedia article knew it was a hoax. But if you do assume that, then it would be reasonable to also assume the real psychology experiment is here on Wikipedia. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the Wikipedia article was part of the hoax or not isn't important. The hoax itself still has not received significant coverage in multiple mainstream sources. First Light (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per most of the above. KaySL - 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable hoax. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There have been thousands of psychological experiments and this one is not any more notable than most of them. --Beirne (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Out, damned spot. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have worked on the article. Lavateraguy would like a better page name.  Please comment on Talk:Dulcis foetidus. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I thought this 'smelled funny' from the very beginning (11 Sept when it was made live); I noted my concerns in the Feedback request, and posted on WikiProj Biology. Now, OK, we know it was a hoax; but it isn't a notable hoax. Articles require significant coverage, and the one Beeb article ain't that.  Chzz  ► 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. One short article from the BBC isn't enough to claim "significant coverage". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment There are also the WP:SELFREF concerns, The false information in Wikipedia included such information as... etc. This really needs to go, ASAP.  Chzz  ► 13:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage - note that the BBC ref is local coverage, not the main BBC website. Can't see any potential for further improvements. Smartse (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (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.