Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens hoax

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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Owens hoax[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable hoax. Got a brief spate of coverage, but no words on it after the fact. Absolutely no updates since 2008, outside one passing mention in 2012. Previous two AFDs from 2008-09 closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the previous AfDs were:

Closed no consensus 2 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens

Closed no consensus 13 January 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Owens (hoax)

OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge Does not seem to have lasting notability. However, in conjunction with Reddit serial killer hoax there may be enough for an article Lying about the past. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lying about the past could possibly be a more fleshed out article than any of the individual hoaxes. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was cited by PC World magazine in January 2011 as one of the top 10 wikipedia hoaxes ever.[1]. See also this 2013 book published by the professor involved, published by U of Mich press.[2]. I do think an alternate option would be to merge into something that doesn't seem to exist yet, a fork from Reliability of Wikipedia on the most notable wikipedia hoaxes (there is Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, but that is not in mainspace and includes many non-notable hoaxes.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is giving aid and comfort to T. Mills Kelly, someone who has purposely sought to undermine Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies on truthfulness and accuracy. We should not have articles that give honor to those who deliberately try to undermine it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about those who unintentionally undermine it? Should that really effect notability? Should the Great Moon Hoax be excluded because it was an obvious fraud on the populace?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Kelly thinks or finds comforting has zero to do with notability, which is the argument TPH made in nominating this article. Steven Walling • talk 05:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article show that it was a notable hoax. To Johnpacklambert's point, I do not see that the article gives either "honor" or "aid and comfort" to the professor whose students promulgated the hoax. I think that it is essential for Wikipedia to frankly discuss its past failings, so as to better detect and avoid future hoaxes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all notable events of the past continue to generate constant coverage, and that doesn't make them any less notable. That's why we call it history. This event clearly passes the basic tests of WP:V and general notability, as demonstrated by the sources involved. Steven Walling • talk 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep There has been discussion and coverage of this, as a specifically targeted hoax. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the following coverage since 2008 in addition to what was already mentioned: [3] [4] [5].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Milowent and User:The Devil's Advocate have demonstrated continued coverage meeting IRS criteria appearing in 2011 and 2012. While an event of limited scope, subject meets WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE. Puts the subject past the event bar for me. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG criteria. Has appropriate coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.