Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homokaasu

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. I'm willing to undelete this if anyone can point me to sources that show the subject passes WP:GNG. At the moment, sources don't seem to be forthcoming, and Cirt's WP:SOURCESEARCH argument is a bit too elusive to sway me from closing as delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homokaasu[edit]

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

Long running article, but I'm doubtful about it. So was a CSD tagger. The references are useless, and there doesn't seem to be an article on the Finnish Wikipedia. An article about The Sect of Homokaasu was deleted in 2007 - this was about the website cited in this article, and which now seems to consist of seagulls and clocks. If this not a hoax, I think it to be non-notable. Possibly, both. Peridon (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I (speaking native Finnish) personally understand this to bee just crazy humour, not meant to be a serious article. --Höyhens (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a keep or a delete? Peridon (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Open to WP:HEY keep if enough sourcing to ensure we meet verifiability. We have other articles on Usenet memes so there is a possibility here, likely the Finnish sources are needed to ensure we aren't engaging in original research. Certainly no objection to recreation if sources are found. Insomesia (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was easily able to find secondary sources in simple searches through (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what these reliable sources were! I'd like to save this but at the moment there's not enough references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2012 (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) 14:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's just call this a non-notable Finnish meme. Or a hoax article about a Finnish meme. Or something. Regardless, this is a GNG fail and there should be a high bar on something this sketchy. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2012 (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.