Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olimar The Wondercat (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Olimar The Wondercat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure that this could qualify for a speedy deletion as web content or not, so I'm bringing this to AfD. G4 doesn't apply here since it's written as an article about the hoax.

Ultimately I don't see where this hoax has received the type of coverage that we'd require in order to warrant an article. Only two of the sources are places that would be considered a reliable source and both of them only mention the hoax in passing. The other two sources appear to be self-published and neither would be an exception to the WP:SPS rule in this case. The other sources are all linked to Wikipedia, making them WP:PRIMARY at best.

A search brought up very little that would establish notability and the best I could find was this article in the Journal Dunet.

We already have this archived at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, which is available as a hatnote at the top of the article that covers hoaxes on Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia. I don't know that we particularly need an article on specific Wikipedia hoaxes. I suppose we could discuss whether or not to have a page that lists the hoaxes in the mainspace as opposed to the wikispace, but I would personally be against that since it could potentially be seen as an encouragement to create hoaxes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. If we're writing a Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article, then people really have not much to do. Anyway, it does not meet WP:GNG nor does it pass WP:SPS, and this is chronicled in the list of Wikipedia hoaxes. epicgenius ( talk ) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies, where it is more than sufficiently covered. I was sort of hoping this new version of the article -- about the hoax -- was created by same the author. To give keep the dream alive, that is. Oh well. Yeah, I'm not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG either. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it was just removed from list of Wikipedia controversies. Alright then, I guess I'd still support a redirect to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Seems like an acceptable use of a cross-namespace redirect. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that we could do that with things like this. If that's doable, I don't have a particular problem with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that that's any bright line on the matter. Certainly cross-namespace redirects are discouraged, but we do have plenty of them. In this case, the page we're redirecting to is more directly connected to article content than most projectspace pages. Maybe it would wind up at RfD, but it seems like a fine outcome for this discussion anyway :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Handing out trophy redirects to go along with the trophy entries on the list of hoaxes seems like a bad path to go down. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to delete.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a notable hoax, not enough that could be appropriately sourced. Don't redirect - cross-namespace redirects for specific deleted pages shouldn't exist, even those for Wikipedia's policies and processes are often deleted. Peter James (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - After reviewing the references and looking for additional sources, I agree that notability with this hoax doesn't exist enough for it to be merged or redirected.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:21, 26 February 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.