I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do.
If contrary evidence shows up it's easy enough to rewrite or resurrect, whereas presence of an article in Wikipedia may have a disproportionate effect on how the hoax fares. On 9/11/09, Eugene van der Pijll <[email protected]> wrote: > Carcharoth schreef: >> The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to >> get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that >> are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look >> up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion discussion >> for the person who knows where to look for the obscure source to >> confirm something, to turn up (a week in the case of AfD). >> >> This applies more to articles where people are guessing something must >> be a hoax (and not finding anything confirming it is true), rather >> than articles where a reliable sources confirms it is a hoax. > > On the other hand, if there are reliable sources that confirm it's a > hoax, there is a chance that the hoax itself is notable. In which case, > the article could also be kept (and state that it is a hoax, of course). > > This too is best discussed at a 7-day AfD. > > Eugene > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
