Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molesworth Institute


 * 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. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Molesworth Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A hoax (or, longstanding in-joke among some librarians) largely presented as fact. Questionable notability. HaeB (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From : "[ Norman D. Stevens ] enjoys being a prankster. He delights in obtaining listings for the [Molesworth] institute or staff members, including himself, Nigel Molesworth, and Timothy Peason, in standard reference books [...] Stevens published an entry on the Molesworth Institute on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors questioned some of the information and added to the page an external link to an 'article citing hoax in Who's Who in Library Servies as the source of the name Molesworth.'"
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as Hoax. "absurdist informatics, disjunctive librarianship, and word play" indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, have left a message on comedy wikiproject talkpage notifying them of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, theres an entry in the Encyclopedia of Library History (allbeit by Stevens), Archives of Library Research from the Molesworth Institute (1985) is held by around 120 libraries and has been reviewed in the Library and Information Science Annual (here), Molesworth Institute "members" (possibly stevens only?) have made presentations at Association for Information Science and Technology SIG/CON conferences (see here), The Serials Librarian has an article "The Molesworth Institute Library Reopens", there is an indepth article on Stevens and the institute in The Laughing Librarian: A History of American Library Humor here, reckon at the very least this is deserving of a "redirect/merge" to stevens. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If this hoax has been covered in in reliable sources (such as the one discussed by HaeB); then this could still be worthy of an article, with potentially a move to Molesworth Institute hoax. Otherwise a listing at WP:HOAXLIST would of course be appropriate (as this would then become the most enduring hoax there...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)  blocked as sockpuppet  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a hoax library with its own article in Wikipedia.  As it stands, it is a delete as it is the hoax presented as fact.  Perhaps a future article on the Molesworth Institute (hoax library) could be written, but this is not it.  Candidate for WP:HOAXLIST. Britishfinance (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY by and  below.  Article is no longer misleading and there is enough GNG to keep it. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject passes Notability with the sources presented in this discussion and additional sources I found and added to the article. I rewrote the article to remove promotional material and to make it clear that the Molesworth Institute is a fictional institute, not a real institute. Cunard (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment., I could see a potential for it as Molesworth Institute (hoax library), and with the text re-written to reflect the true facts (there is some GNG for this), but as currently written, it is a hoax being presented as a fact (i.e. a real library)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep this is not the Molesworth Institute (hoax library) page. I'd favor creating that page. Balle010 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed a couple paragraphs that were written from an "in-universe" perspective (taking the hoax as fact). What remains might better be treated at Norman D. Stevens. On the other hand, the description in The Laughing Librarian is pretty extensive, so it's possible the article could be built back up again, making more clear what's part of the joke. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing that in-universe material that took the hoax as fact. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment:, , and , I have further expanded the article with information from the sources (though there is much more content that can be added from The Laughing Librarian). The article says, "The Molesworth Institute is a fictional organization started with the aim of furthering library comedy", so it's not misleading readers into thinking it might be a real institute as it had been before. I am fine with renaming to Molesworth Institute (hoax library) if that changes editors' positions, but would adding a disambiguator to the title be compliant with the Disambiguation guideline given that the current title does not "refe[r] to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia"? Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very nice job, and agree/appreciate the renaming as well. I have changed my !vote to keep. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Changing my vote to keep as well! Balle010 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Decently sourced for an article about a long-running joke, and clear on the point that it's a joke. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's properly cited with links to notable peer-reviewed journals. Almost a library industry cultural phenomenon at this point, it ceased being a "prank" years ago. From what I understand it's the equivalent of the "Who's On First" sketch to the library world. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. After improvements any previous in-universe quality has been well scrubbed off.  Nice work, gotta say. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2020 (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.