Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourist guy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tourist guy

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

While I do find this WP:INTERESTING, it is essentially non-notable and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. The link to Wired is nothing more than a single sentence with a "photo gallery" containing two photos. I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as non-notable and per nom. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are some reasonable references. Still, I think it would be better off as a paragraph in a more general article rather than as a stand-alone article. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's amusing but will be forgotten within a year. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I seem to remember this being covered by The Guardian at the time. I believe that this phenomenon is moderately notable. I haven't forgotten about it, several years after the event, and I'm not sure I agree with the preceding commenter who suggests that in another year, Tourist Guy will be forgotten. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment linky to Guardian article -Hunting dog (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is still talk about this 7 years after, so why should it be forgotton within a year? I recently heard a friend mention it again, so I went to wikipedia to check the article, being surprised that it was proposed for deletion. In fact, at the time I got this photo emailed no wikipedia article existed. I am happy to have come here and to have found out who this Tourist Guy was and that he also appeares in other fakes now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthardt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Snopes is surely a reliable source. There's lots of other stuff here. Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zagalejo. First I've heard of this, but proper verifiable and reputable documentation appears to exist. (the snopes source should be added to the article naturally.) -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Snopes and The Gaurdian are two third-party, reliable sources. Needs hella-improvement, but it's a keep. padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur that improvement is warranted, but it's verifiable and certainly notable. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep an extremely notable hoax that garnered much media attention. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW keep. I think it's pretty borderline myself (sure, it's gotten coverage, but as a throwaway phenomenon), but it's obvious where the consensus here is.  Xihr  21:49, 21 September 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.