Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury Hare


 * 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. It's not gonna be any less of a hoax if we keep discussing it for several more days. DS (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Salisbury Hare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a suspected hoax. All mentions of this subject found online lead back to Wikipedia, and the references are suspect. Two are not about the article subject, and of the other four, only one is available online, and this subject is not actually mentioned there. In fact, nothing that this source used to cite is actually found in the source. Going through them one by one:
 * 1. A Bibliography of Folklore. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1961. (This source exists, but is not available online.)
 * 2. Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1904. (Available here, no mention of this subject.)
 * 3. Leach, Maria (1949). Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend vol.1. (This source exists, but is not available online.)
 * 4. Johnson, Paul (7 May 1967). "Hare we go, a strange encounter". Salisbury Journal. (This source [publication] exists, but [that year] is not available online.) Edited for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 5. Berry Judson, Katherine (2009). Myth and Legends of California and the Old Southwest. (Not available online in the original form, but the eBook published a few years later is, here. Totally irrelevant to the article subject, though.)
 * 6. Flanagan, Barry (1983). Barry Flanagan: recent sculpture, October 28-16 November 1983. (Irrelevant.)

The article is not linked from any other Wikipedia article, and has not received any significant edits since its creation ~7.5 years ago. The creation of this article was the creator's only edit to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I would also copy the following IP comment from the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "This article may be entirely false. 1. The Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre have confirmed there is no mention of a hare sighting in the Imber Parish Record for 1318. 2. The Foklore Society have confirmed that neither Wilfrid Bonser's A Bibliography of Folklore (London: Folklore Society, 1961) nor Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain, 1904) contain any mention to a hare connected with Salisbury, Imber or Wiltshire. 3. There was no edition of the Salisbury Journal published on 7th May 1967. The nearest editions (4th May and 11th May) do not contain the article referenced here. 79.78.116.255 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)"


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and fails WP:V.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated; almost certainly wholly untrue and misleading.  RobinCarmody (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Folklore topics are sometimes tough, but there's no real question that this one's a hoax. Google Scholar returns a big fat zip. A text search on the Internet Archive's digitized collection returns only false positives. Google Books gives a handful of hits, but they're mostly self-published; none of them display academic rigor, and all postdate this article's creation, so citogenesis (rather than legitimacy) is the parsimonious explanation. Creating editor was a drive-by with no other contributions, which further tends to support this argument (many of these types of hoaxes are so created, sadly almost certainly by people who know precisely what they're doing). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems very likely that this is a hoax, as the comments made above well illustrate. Even if it is not an intentional hoax and was a genuine attempt to create an article we have the issue that the references do not seem to be genuine meaning that the article is based on no sources or a bad misinterpretation of sources. Moreover there is no evidence of the topic being notable, especially given the fact it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else. So almost certainly a hoax, but even if not would fail notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (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.