Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacopo di Poggibonsi


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacopo di Poggibonsi
I came across this article scouring through the Wikify backlog, and at the time it was mostly unformatted, copy-pasted text from http://www.umich.edu/~engtt516/, the source of the hoax (possibly done as vandalism in an attempt to validate or provide another credible source for it). I quickly tidied up the article to return it to being a proper, factual account of the hoax and added some references, but, while the subject is somewhat interesting (I love the idea of a classroom of kids copy-pasting from the internet and then being told everything they wrote is baloney), I still don't believe this qualifies as a particularly notable hoax on its own (certainly not on the level of Bonsai Kitten and other well-known sucker-bait) - Google returns fewer than 300 hits for his name, most of them linking to the UMich site or the assignment plan. Therefore, I nominate this for AfD as a non-notable minor hoax. Also, to pre-empt any comments, I'm well aware of the irony of this article having only one or two credible sources - the very lesson it was trying to teach! If this had become a more widespread hoax, there would be more references out there than mere links to the source website. ~Matticus TC 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very cute, but fails notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a passing thought, but wouldn't this be useful in Wikipedia space as a warning on the need for multiple, independent reports ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not a bad idea - a brief explanation and a couple of links to the lesson plan and the fake biography somewhere in WP:V or similar. It makes the point very vividly. ~Matticus TC 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as a matter of courtesy since that does rather give the game away. Eusebeus 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject is just as valid as anything else and presents valuable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. An interesting article, but I believe it fails WP:HOAX: "Hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years." Actually this AfD is recursive, because if you admire the hoax and wish it long life, you should delete the Wikipedia article as a courtesy (per Eusebeus), since otherwise the next round of gullible students would Google the Wikipedia article and get tipped off. EdJohnston 04:29, 9 October 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.