Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894


 * 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 keep. As noted by people here, we delete pages that ARE hoaxes but not necessarily pages that are ABOUT hoaxes so as long as we make it clear that a) they are such and b) they satisfy notability guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is referencing a popular urban legend that has been repeated numerous times but never actually happened. See: https://peakoil.com/generalideas/the-impossible-battle-against-fake-news-the-horse-manure-crisis-in-london. If nothing more the article should be revised completely to explicitly state it is an myth with no basis in actual history. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The edit summary for the creation of the article states "Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 is an outdated concept of urban planning" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - not quite an urban legend. As explained here - source - this was coined (in the 1894 form) by Stephen Davis in The Freeman in 2004. It has since been referenced in various placed (as evident in google books/scholar/news). The problem itself (of horse manure) was a real one in the late 19th century - the 1894 crisis is a made up parable (of a problem that would be solved by a (then) un-forseen technical innovation (the car)). I suspect the 2004 article and parable may be notable. The article, as presently construed, presenting this as factual is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, as article now makes clear this is a hoax/parable. Could use some more work. Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this horseshit article even if it's horseshit because AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The myth/urban legend/story/whatever is clearly notable in and of itself–the article is a good addition to the encyclopedia and I'm glad it was written. That the article doesn't explain that it's a myth is a reason to edit the article, not delete it. I don't have access to the 2018 Times article that I guess debunks this myth, but someone else who does could use it to update the article. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, which WP:RELIABLE source are we using to establish a quote "Horse Manure Crisis of 1894" specific topic? Which do we follow? Which is reliable, notable etc? I agree that AFD is not cleanup. How does wikipedia treat notable myths when half the myth story is a jumbled mess of poop based on a parable quoted by an economic journal that was once a libertarian literature editorial. The UK Times article you linked to is 404'd and no longer is accessible. That being said I did laugh a little about it so maybe that's what you are getting at. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the link, sorry about that. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I concur the present article fails WP:HOAX in presenting this 1894 crisis, coined/invented in 2004, as factual. You may be able to save it with a WP:HEY - but work is required here.Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think FOARP may have put the horse back in the barn. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is my creation, and I see how it can go both ways (I actually created the article under understanding that it is a real thing, finding reliable sources, and then it was pointed out to me that this ls likely a hoax). Please see the talk page discussion for more information.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an article about a notable hoax and should be kept per WP:NHOAX. Referencing needed to show this is available. User:Ymblanter and others seem to be on top of this and should be allowed to get on with it. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a hoax, it was a problem genuinely considered in the 19th century and is used in modern times as a meme for a problem that may resolve itself through developing technology. SpinningSpark 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a hoax in the sense that all the details used to describe it as a crisis (the supposed conference, the 1894 Times article, the failure to see that cars would replace horses in the 1890's) simply aren't true. But that isn't a reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know if there was a particular crisis in any particular year. At newspapers.com, "manure" doesn't seem to show up more in 1894 than in other years during the period. The most interesting thing I found has to do with Manure Bills in the state legislature, two in particular. In the mid 1870s to late 1880s, Michael Kane maintained a dump at Newtown Creek (which was so bad, it is now a superfund site, or maybe it is a superfund for some other reasons). His brother-in-law, State Senator John J. Cullen tried to pass a number of (corrupt?) manure bills to protect Kane from penalties related to problems with the dump in the 1880s, at least until 1887. In 1894, State Senator Judson Lawson succeeded in passing a law requiring manure to be bailed (compressed) before carting off, a state which made it easier to carry off. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article makes it clear that the issue was a hoax, and gives context for the hoax as a metaphor for problems solved by advancing technology. RobDuch (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is enough consensus here to keep. I request an admin close this AFD nomination. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, well sources, amusing hoax.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly dropping the date). Even if the story began as a hoax, it is a sufficiently notable one for an article on the subject to be worth having.  Otherwise people will continue promulgating it as if it were truth.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (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.