Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jar'Edo Wens 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 keep. Consensus appears to be to keep this article at this time, there has certainly been no argument to delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Jar'Edo Wens hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No lasting effect and nothing special among many other hoaxes. Probably merge to Reliability of Wikipedia. GZWDer (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - When you've got articles in the Washington Post and the Sydney mainstream press reporting on the hoax, what we have is notability. I suppose a case could be made for an IAR deletion or a deletion per NOT NEWS, which might be fine for a less lengthy stunt, but the fact that this was one of the longest running hoaxes on WP gives some weight to the Keep side of the teeter-totter. Passes GNG, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Other longer running hoaxes were later found and there're no articles about them. The content of this article is short and should be merged with Reliability of Wikipedia.--GZWDer (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an OTHER STUFF [DOES NOT EXIST] argument. If those other hoaxes generated major mainstream press coverage, there should be articles about them as well, I would argue. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - made international news and to be honest an illuminating cautionary tale of the problems Wikipedia can have. The fact that longer-running hoaxes have been found since does not invalidate this. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - Article 'bout Jack Robichaux proved to be a longer lasting hoax, got the same media attention, but has no article about the hoax itself.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's notable; the article just needs cleaning up. The argument that "Other longer running hoaxes were later found and there're no articles about them" is meaningless and the opposite of WP:OSE ("The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist"}. Just because other articles on hoaxes don't exist doesn't mean they should not or will not exist. Sundayclose (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequately referenced and conceptually encyclopedic. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2016 (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.