Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkeyman superhero 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 delete. Sandstein 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyman superhero hoax[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Seems to have been an event that got a whole lot of coverage for about a month in May 2003. There is extensive coverage from that time, mostly consisting of long articles in British publications and shorter global articles. See all the coverage I found: The Times (May 3, 2003) The Telegraph (May 25, 2003) South China Morning Press (seems to be the same as a Rueters report, May 7, 2003)The Telegraph, (May 11, 2003). There are a few other dead-links, but that about sums it up. So, back in 2004 this would have seemed to be clearly notable. However, with the benefit of time (16 years of it!) it has become clear that this is not the case. One of the fundamental criteria of an event being considered notable is that it has a lasting effect and a duration of coverage that extends beyond a typical news cycle. Since May 2003, I have found only a BBC 'fun stuff' interview that is dated three weeks after the story, and about a page in New Century, Same Shit: The First Decade, a book that is a satire of the 2000s, not exactly the sort of coverage I would consider indicative of notability. Any other coverage has essentially dried up, from what I found after fairly extensive searching. Somewhat of a borderline case, given the rather in-depth coverage in major UK newspapers, but notable topics have sustained coverage that is beyond just a burst of news coverage, and that does not appear to be the case here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'event' without lasting significance. Interviews do not establish notability, but there are newspaper articles on this as your ample research shows. Ultimately this just appears to be another 'viral prank' (of sorts) - and we cannot have an article for everything that goes viral. I would say it could be included on List of hoaxes. Also, I know this is not relevant to whether the article should be kept, but on the issue of lasting significance, in the past 5 years, this article has averaged 55 views a month and in that same period only had 8 edits. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, in the sense of not worthy of an article, even with some RS references. I actually remember this one; I wouldn't say it was big news even at the time (a silly prank more than a hoax?), and that was then. Just get rid of it, I doubt anybody will miss it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2020 (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.