Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZiL Begemot


 * 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   speedy delete. by User:Dank55 with support of creator. Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ZiL Begemot

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

This article is based on a newspaper article that is confirmed to be an April Fool's hoax. A Vand talkcontribs 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article is about the April Fool's joke itself and declares that several times. It has three news stories covering it.  I would prefer to see more in line citations. The article may need help, but I don't see a reason to delete. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but does it really pass the WP:N criteria? A Vand talkcontribs 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't the reason you nominated the article. However, I believe being covered by multiple newspapers (who thought it was a real story) does qualify as notible. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Turlo. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Is the hoax itself notable? Of the "three news articles" covering it, two are pre-hoax (talking about the car itself), and only one discusses the hoax.  If all we have to go on is one news article, this would fall under WP:NOT.  Also, although Turlo points out that this article admits the hoax, actually only the lead paragraph does; the entire "Description" section describes the car as if it were real.  That is an easily surmountable problem, of course, but in any case that amount of description is not really necessary since this was a hoax, and doesn't contribute to any claims of notability. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Creator: Go ahead, Strong Delete. When I first wrote this article, it was because I read an article from Xinhua, which linked to the article from Moscow Times, and as it looked genuine, I actually believed it. After five days from writing the article, I discovered that it was a hoax (and subsequently edited it, see talk page). I personally believe that now it is non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and should be deleted. Sorry for any trouble caused, it was a mistake of mine. Regards, --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:59, 24 April 2009 (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.