Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Hoax

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Hoax".

• If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
• If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
• If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the Deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale

Besides the misleading title, this article is orphaned and, as far as I can tell, unnecessary. It's basically an attempt to re-create the "Requiem for a Martian" page that was voted for deletion a short time ago. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

There is nothing misleading about the title: the title describes precisely what the article is about. As to it being an attempt to recreate the "Requiem for a Martian" page, it is exactly that: an attempt to recreate a page that was created specifically to debunk a hoax. Only in this case, it explicitly states its "real world POV," discusses hoaxes in general, and is explicitly documented. What possible reason would you have to object to a page that debunks hoaxes, unless you are yourself involved in the perpetuation of them? Keep. --James H. H. Lampert 18:08, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

Comment (actually a reply): First, yes the title is misleading, because, as you said, it is in regards to debunking hoaxes rather than explaining what the term means. Second, if it is a recreation of the "Requiem for a Martian" page, that would qualify it as an immediate deletion. And third, we don't create articles specifically for the purpose of debunking anything. We might note that hoaxes or what-not exist on other articles, but a page specifically for the purposes of saying something isn't real is not what we're here for. That's not to say that the article isn't well-written or well-documented, of course, but still. ;) --From Andoria with Love 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, quickly. I nominated "Requiem for a Martian" for deletion (IIRC), and want this one gone too. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The subject of hoaxes with regard to Trek material is a valid issue. -- Krevaner 07:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Why should we further spread misinformation? I've only started to hear about this "Requiem for a Martian" during the last few weeks, is somebody trying to push this information into the foreground or something? Get rid of it. --Jörg 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've never heard of any of this. If "Requiem for a Martian" is really a phenomenon, I'd like to read a discussion and subsequent debunking. Granted, MA may not be the appropriate place for it. Wikipedia, maybe. -- StAkAr Karnak 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete -Alan del Beccio 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Simply from the standpoint of being an encyclopedia, this should be removed. sources cited are unreliable, unverifiable, and questionable at best. Its also trying to discuss an episode which supposedly aired, on NBC, in prime time, which no record exists of, and no one remembers. If the episode existed but was canned before broadcast, this is fodder for the non-cannon wiki. If it aired, then was canned.. we need to find the guys who went to all the houses of people watching NBC in the sixties with those flasher things from Men in Black. As for its claim that there was a star trek radio series in the 20's and 40's, I would need a citeable source, and even then, that is not fodder for this wiki, as it is NOT cannon. The scope of this site does not include Hoaxes, real or imagined. --Six of Six 08:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin resolution

This article has been deleted for various reasons: it was an attempt to recreate a previously deleted article; it is a topic no one has heard about until now; it appears to have been an attempt to push misinformation into the foreground; its sources were at best questionable; and the content itself was unencyclopedic. Did I miss anything? :) --From Andoria with Love 05:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That it required those men in black flasher thingamajigs? thats about it --Six of Six 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)