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.
Comment IMO, this is where Wikipedia's verifiability, notability etc. requirements fall down: an editor can create an article on pretty much anything they want, and as long as they quote only off-line sources — the more obscure the better — it becomes virtually impossible to disprove them. Sure, if you have the time and the inclination to visit a few major reference libraries you might be able get somewhere, but who is going to do that, especially within the week or so that an AfD stays open? And even then, it would be just one editor's say-so. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't prove beyond doubt that this is a hoax, but balance of probabilities does suggest that. Conversely, I also can't verify the offline sources, and hence for me this fails
WP:V. (And please, don't anyone point out that offline sources are also acceptable — I know that full well; I'm saying that I cannot verify this.) For the same reason, it also could fail
WP:OR (note that much of the article contents are unsupported by citations, so there's no knowing where they came from), and possibly other things as well. (Further factors suggesting this may be dodgy: the article has no incoming or inter-language links, so it really is a lone orphan. Odd, that. Oh, I forget — it's a very 'secretive' method, right.) Now, if I could find even one reliable online source to corroborate at least some of this, I might err on the side of keeping it, but as I can't, I think the safe and sensible option is to delete. I for one would rather miss out on ten articles on genuine, verifiable topics, than include even one on a hoax. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I checked the first source cited and could find no reference to this technique. The page cited is about forging steel swords, and has no relation with anything said about the article. While I don't have access to the second source, looking at the Amazon listing & reviews shows it's about knife sharpening, and none of the reviews mention this technique.
JumpytooTalk21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as evident hoax. I also have a copy of the first source; as Jumpytoo said, there's nothing on p. 145 or in the rest of the book about this. This concept is already hard-to-believe on its face, and given the evidence provided in the nom I find it hard to believe this is anything but a hoax. —
Goszei (
talk)
03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't say I'm happy this was undeleted, although I also suspect any policy that would prevent its undeletion would catch too many false positives. It's a relatively sophisticated hoax, excluding the part where it was bragged about on a meme subreddit.
Vaticidalprophet03:14, 12 April 2021 (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.
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.
Comment IMO, this is where Wikipedia's verifiability, notability etc. requirements fall down: an editor can create an article on pretty much anything they want, and as long as they quote only off-line sources — the more obscure the better — it becomes virtually impossible to disprove them. Sure, if you have the time and the inclination to visit a few major reference libraries you might be able get somewhere, but who is going to do that, especially within the week or so that an AfD stays open? And even then, it would be just one editor's say-so. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't prove beyond doubt that this is a hoax, but balance of probabilities does suggest that. Conversely, I also can't verify the offline sources, and hence for me this fails
WP:V. (And please, don't anyone point out that offline sources are also acceptable — I know that full well; I'm saying that I cannot verify this.) For the same reason, it also could fail
WP:OR (note that much of the article contents are unsupported by citations, so there's no knowing where they came from), and possibly other things as well. (Further factors suggesting this may be dodgy: the article has no incoming or inter-language links, so it really is a lone orphan. Odd, that. Oh, I forget — it's a very 'secretive' method, right.) Now, if I could find even one reliable online source to corroborate at least some of this, I might err on the side of keeping it, but as I can't, I think the safe and sensible option is to delete. I for one would rather miss out on ten articles on genuine, verifiable topics, than include even one on a hoax. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
14:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I checked the first source cited and could find no reference to this technique. The page cited is about forging steel swords, and has no relation with anything said about the article. While I don't have access to the second source, looking at the Amazon listing & reviews shows it's about knife sharpening, and none of the reviews mention this technique.
JumpytooTalk21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as evident hoax. I also have a copy of the first source; as Jumpytoo said, there's nothing on p. 145 or in the rest of the book about this. This concept is already hard-to-believe on its face, and given the evidence provided in the nom I find it hard to believe this is anything but a hoax. —
Goszei (
talk)
03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't say I'm happy this was undeleted, although I also suspect any policy that would prevent its undeletion would catch too many false positives. It's a relatively sophisticated hoax, excluding the part where it was bragged about on a meme subreddit.
Vaticidalprophet03:14, 12 April 2021 (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.