Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Bull's Blood (hoax) (3rd 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Order of the Bull's Blood (hoax)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hoax. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Even though this AFD page has "(3rd nomination)" in the title, this is actually the 4th discussion for this subject. Calathan (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of significance, let alone WP:N notability.  Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Confirmed as a hoax perpetrated by User:ColonelHenry.  WCM email 06:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Hoax created on purpose by a now banned user who admitted that it was a hoax in the first place.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the article itself is now not a hoax. See WP:HOAX, section "Hoaxes, versus articles about hoaxes": as it stands now, the article provides a neutral, properly sourced description of a hoax.  We should treat this like any other article about a real-life incident, so the only real reason to delete is that the real-life incident isn't notable, since it doesn't appear to have any secondary sources.  Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's what I was trying to say in my nomination. It is a documented hoax, but a non-notable one. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt all entries. I did a search and ultimately the coverage here is fairly non-notable. The problem here is that even when it was believed to be a real thing, it really didn't get much coverage. After it became known as a hoax? That got zero attention. So here's the problem: the coverage it did get when it was believed to be real is kind of unreliable because it sort of shows that none of the papers did anything beyond saying "hey, here's a secret society!" and not really checking into it that much. A lot of the coverage stems from one incident of vandalism. Since we can obviously no longer redirect to Rutgers, we have to look at this on its own notability... which is lacking. We should probably salt all of the entries to prevent re-creation in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – A hoax about a hoax? Well, that's something. (Also non-notable.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe of local interest, but not notable enough to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A previous version ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Order+of+the+Bull%27s+Blood histmerged together]) was copied to Talk:Rutgers University student organizations after WP:Articles for deletion/Order of the Bull's Blood, February 2009. If this article is deleted, that copy should be blanked and revision deleted (WP:Copying within Wikipedia). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need for revision deletion. I've simply blanked it. —  Scott  •  talk  13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blanking it. I plan to tag the 5 affected revisions with copyvio-revdel to be processed normally, which may be a decline. Revision deletion is used more readily than the old WP:Selective deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. "Blatant copyright violations" applies to things far more serious than a small unattributed copy between articles, especially when the text has been deleted in both locations as a hoax. When addressing requests for revdel due to copyright violations I weigh up the size, duration, and visibility of the infringement - this is just too minor. —  Scott  •  talk  11:55, 28 April 2014 (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.