Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Horse


 * 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. Renata 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Long Horse

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable, blog-driven hoax SWAdair 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) *Keep I came to Wikipedia searching for information about the creation of the hoax and found this article quite relevant in that search. Krbrowning 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this hoax of a horse, of course, of course. wtfunkymonkey 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete how many hoaxes does a horse have? There is one hoax per horse.  Budgiekiller 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Do they have photoshopped newspaper articles, too? MER-C 11:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete After some consideration it appears that a number of blogs have misappropriated Wikipedia to drive their hoax. Krbrowning 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*Weak keep but needs vast improvement and proper sources. There isn't much online other than a lot of speculation, so it will need some printed sources. David L Rattigan 10:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) *Keep - I know nothing of Wikipedia protocols or procedure, nor do I care but I have seen a long horse.--Special:Contributions/71.230.123.79
 * Delete Article presents the hoax as if it were true. NawlinWiki 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's badly written, too. Crispinus211 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BJAODN Why is this even being discussed? User At Work 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for great justice. Doesn't even qualify as a bad joke; this may be the first wikipedia-based meta-hoax I've heard of, though. --moof 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Richard W.M. Jones 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a hoax, and wikipedia should clearly state this. It would be best to lock the article to a version like 20:00, 4 December 2006 12.199.100.178, which was almost correct. On a second note: it indeed is not a hoax. Is was an art project created by Hardy Burmeier. Other people (boingboing?) made a hoax out of it. The German page I linked in 'discussion' explains the motivation of the art project. I think this art project is worth an article in wikipedia. (Unfortunately, since English is my 3th and German my 4th language, I do not have enough knowledge of the 2 of them to make a German to English translation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.214.12 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep This is a hoax, an amusing one at that, and you would have to be dumb as a post to not realize that it is. If Wikipedia is really worried about covering their but, then they could put a disclaimer about that at the top. The article should NOT be deleted
 * Delete This hoax really doesn't predate the Tinselman/BoingBoing coverage. No need to keep driving a 15-minute internet meme. Zachlipton 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Duhhh my name is Mark Frauenfelder, I'm totally gonna pwn Wikipedia ololol I am teh best!" Seriously, Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every Internet meme that drives by. That's what Encyclopedia Dramatica is for! six.oh.six 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Other hoaxes are here on wikipedia, why not this one? Label as hoax, moove on.  You are only feeding the long horse hoax the grass and grain it needs by debating this. Cowicide 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ho ho, comedy vandalism. Delete and salt. Artw 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficiently notable. Andre (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Long horses are adorable. --Perceive 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Dull. --drauh 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Long Horses totally rule. Sean Bonner 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've contributed a bad photoshop job to the post at BoingBoing. Let's relegate this to BJAODN --drauh 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If not worth an article before, the Boingboing things certainly generated enough publicity for people to look it up on wiki and expect to find something useful. Needs to be edited harcore though. jubeanation 9:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that most Boing Boing readers are aware of wikipeida without being incited to vandalise it, so I'm a bit confused as to why Boing Boing has chosen to do this. It's certainly nothing we should pander to Artw 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you kidding me? If you delete this, you're spitting on the grave of an extinct, noble animal.  For shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.214.254 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep If only for the fact that even hoaxes deserve entries. --clpo13 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, unless good verifiable sources are cited indicating that this hoax is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, hoax. Boing Boing posters should know better. feydey 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpbsmith. Joyous! | Talk 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and use the time to do better photoshopping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete recent hoax, unless someone has a source explains otherwise, I see little chance that the hoax will even live to the end of this AfD debate.--SirNuke 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete After forty-four edits in 2 days, this article has devolved into nonsense. I don't see any likelyhood of improvement. Tubezone 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack for sources to prove truthfulness of content.-- danntm T C 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for no sources, now or ever. It appears to be an attempt to see how much traction BoingBoing can give to a hoax by getting people to link to it and post about it, artificially inflating its notability Googlability. I'm guessing their aim is to create controversy and get a respectable mainstream publication to acknowledge it, at which point it will be notable enough for Wikipedia, and they'll have "won" and can go back to posting goatse sightings and HOWTO makecrapfromcrap. mjb 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can see an article about the Long Horse hoax, but not the article perpetuating the Long Horse hoax. Zealander 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the WP:HOAX guideline and the WP:NOR policy. --Kjoonlee 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I understand it, the long horse was initially a niche of art. Even if we care to overlook that, wikipedia does need an article to explain such a virulent hoax. Robinoke 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Has some mild historical merit, if only for the amount of work that went into modifying a picture with the tools available at the time. I recommend merging into List of hoaxes. Ma11achy 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a publicity stunt by a website - If we allow this crap to remain every blog on the web will try their own, just to get their name in Wikipedia. It has no sources, no documentation. All it shows is that someone can do some bad photoshopping. --Outlander 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please be aware that Burmeier was born in 1971, not that the photos were done then. He's a digital artist. -- nae'blis 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename How to create yet another annoying, witless meme.Lowerarchy 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (and strike my last "vote"). I had assumed it was a genuinely historical hoax, but on further inspection, it appears it is just an Internet hoax that has developed in the past few days/weeks out of the artwork of this guy Burmeier's work. David L Rattigan 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't we just put a template on it? Mark it as a hoax, add a history of the hoax and keep the existing content as a description of the hoax's intent. I thoroughly disagree that this article should be deleted; marking it as an article that's deliberately inaccurate for humourous purposes seems a reasonable alternative. --aniki21 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What a great idea! Lets all just use WP:NOT as toilet paper! Artw 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - who will even remember this in 6 months time? --h2g2bob 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - not every meme deserves its own Wikipedia entry, at least not right away. Let's check back to see if anyone remembers this in, say, a year... -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to a page titled "Long horse hoax", explaining the origins of the hoax, and the subsequent online following. -AtionSong 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be somewhere for people to go to figure out if this thing is real or not, which it obviously isn't, but it had me going here to check if it was in the first place. -Iggy248 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - stupid.--Deglr6328 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. Luvcraft 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, WP:POINT --Kjoonlee 06:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't cross out other's posts. It may not be a great post, but it's not really disruptive. Remember that this is not a poll: the aim is to convince an admin that the article should stay or go. --h2g2bob 10:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to gymnastics until/unless someone wishes to write an encyclopedic article on the men's long horse gymnastics equipment (and Olympic event/discipline also known as the vault). B.Wind 05:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would Vault (gymnastics) be a better, more specific target then? vaulting horse redirects there. Please note that this redirect can be made editorially even if this article is deleted, and probably should be made anyway from the lowercase "long horse". -- nae'blis 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vault (gymnastics) -don't salvage this nonsense.  SkierRMH, 09:06, 9 December 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.