Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Pseudo Miranda


 * 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. - Philippe 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Pseudo Miranda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a classic coatrack article, masquerading as a factual account of a large CIA operation (with a title pointing specifically to it) but in reality merely delivering the plot of the sole editor's book (verbatim). There is no other reference anywhere to "Operation Pseudo Miranda", and it appears to be entirely a construct of the author (as well as 3/4ths of his book title). There is only ONE other independent reference I could find on the book itself; it's from the Orange County Press and calls the book a likely hoax. Still, it's selling on Amazon and I'm not begrudging the book it's notability, but this is a verifiably unacceptable coatrack and it needs to go. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that the articles on both the book and the author have now been speedily deleted. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why wasn't this taken care of along with the other two pages in the first place? --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article on suspected hoax, with no Reliable Sources. Fake or not doesn't really matter, show the notable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Article on author does not seem to have been speedily deleted (contra nominator), see Kenneth C. Bucchi, Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep / merge. The hoax book itself is apparently notable (Google News test), but obviously the presentation in this article is an atrocity. Merge this and any other related articles to an article on the book, and make sure that article gives sufficient weight to the overwhelmingly likely explanation that this is all a fabrication. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G10 - article cites no reliable sources for verification and (hoax or not) appears to currently serve no other purpose but to disparage an organisation. Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (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.