- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. As this seems to be on the Wikipedia space it is unlikely to tempt people to make hoaxes. This was dangerously close to an WP:SNOW close anyway. -- TL22 ( talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia
This page documents hoaxes on Wikipedia with the intention of making editors improve their understanding of a hoax; however, this is most likely going to make people get tempted to try to make hoaxes, even if they have been advised not to at the top, resulting in a violation of WP:BEANS. I would also like to nominate its subpages for the same reason. TL22 ( talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As an editor who found a hoax and had it added to the page, I think this is an important and interesting page that reminds editors not to take unsourced (or poorly sourced) information as fact without checking it. I think WP has proven its worth to the world and can handle a page that lists cases that fell through the cracks before someone discovered they were hoaxes. Plus, this page is in internal space, not article space and it is unlikely that causal vandals would come across it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This page archives significant hoaxes and shows historic examples of them, as per Liz. The Snowager -is awake 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Whatever temptation to create hoaxes is inspired by this page is outweighed by the benefits it provides by showing Wikipedia's transparency, which multiple sources have already taken note of. (I am the page's creator.) Shii (tock) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems useful enough to keep. -- DSA510 Pls No Level Up 01:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this page serves a useful function by illustrating Wikipedia's vulnerability to hoaxes, and has been cited as such by newspapers. This function outweighs the theoretical but rather remote possibility of someone creating a hoax just to get it listed on this page. Hut 8.5 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, but it should have a cut-off time limit. Listing all hoaxes, even ones that only lasted a few days or weeks, will encourage new hoaxes. This discussion should be held on its talk page. --
P 1 9 9
✉
19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It already does, a full year. The hoaxes that lasted less than a year are on a different page, which I question the utility of. Shii (tock) 23:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful as a reminder of the sorts of false information that can slip past the not-quite-as-watchful-as-we-wish eyes of we the caretakers of Wikipedia. Binksternet ( talk) 00:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep We should make sure to remember all the times Wikipedia has failed its reader base, and try to learn from past mistakes. Also as already mentioned it's a pretty obscure page that would be hard fo rvandals to find. Bosstopher ( talk) 08:56, 13 May 2015 (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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. As this seems to be on the Wikipedia space it is unlikely to tempt people to make hoaxes. This was dangerously close to an WP:SNOW close anyway. -- TL22 ( talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia
This page documents hoaxes on Wikipedia with the intention of making editors improve their understanding of a hoax; however, this is most likely going to make people get tempted to try to make hoaxes, even if they have been advised not to at the top, resulting in a violation of WP:BEANS. I would also like to nominate its subpages for the same reason. TL22 ( talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As an editor who found a hoax and had it added to the page, I think this is an important and interesting page that reminds editors not to take unsourced (or poorly sourced) information as fact without checking it. I think WP has proven its worth to the world and can handle a page that lists cases that fell through the cracks before someone discovered they were hoaxes. Plus, this page is in internal space, not article space and it is unlikely that causal vandals would come across it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This page archives significant hoaxes and shows historic examples of them, as per Liz. The Snowager -is awake 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Whatever temptation to create hoaxes is inspired by this page is outweighed by the benefits it provides by showing Wikipedia's transparency, which multiple sources have already taken note of. (I am the page's creator.) Shii (tock) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems useful enough to keep. -- DSA510 Pls No Level Up 01:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep this page serves a useful function by illustrating Wikipedia's vulnerability to hoaxes, and has been cited as such by newspapers. This function outweighs the theoretical but rather remote possibility of someone creating a hoax just to get it listed on this page. Hut 8.5 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, but it should have a cut-off time limit. Listing all hoaxes, even ones that only lasted a few days or weeks, will encourage new hoaxes. This discussion should be held on its talk page. --
P 1 9 9
✉
19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- It already does, a full year. The hoaxes that lasted less than a year are on a different page, which I question the utility of. Shii (tock) 23:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful as a reminder of the sorts of false information that can slip past the not-quite-as-watchful-as-we-wish eyes of we the caretakers of Wikipedia. Binksternet ( talk) 00:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep We should make sure to remember all the times Wikipedia has failed its reader base, and try to learn from past mistakes. Also as already mentioned it's a pretty obscure page that would be hard fo rvandals to find. Bosstopher ( talk) 08:56, 13 May 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.