Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jar'Edo Wens hoax (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jar'Edo Wens 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)

A long term hoax that got a brief spate of coverage when it was unveiled and nothing before or since. Just a blip on the radar in Wikipedia history. Delete or merge to History of Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia for lack of long term notability. Last AFD closed as keep less than a year after it happened on assumption that it was noteworthy, but the lack of coverage after the fact suggests WP:NOTNEWS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Wikipedia, this is basically a WP:NOTNEWS. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes notability. Merge would lose relevant information. --Andreas JN 466 10:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note mention in more recent sources such as Debra L. Merskin (12 November 2019). The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society. SAGE Publications. p. 1900. ISBN 978-1-4833-7554-0. or The Register (2017). --Andreas JN 466 10:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of my pet peeves is when people cite WP:NOTNEWS incorrectly. Here is what that page says in a nutshell: "Don't make articles for mundane things like celebrity gossip or unimportant sports matches." Here is what it does NOT say: "A topic must have coverage 'after the fact' to qualify for Wikipedia." It does not matter if the only coverage was contemporaneous, it received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This nomination is nonsensical. Mlb96 (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already had a reasonable discussion and notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got substantial news coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Reliability of Wikipedia#Other false information. A minor episode in the context of Wikipedia hoaxes, can well be covered in a more condensed form. Sandstein 05:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources which extends beyond 'routine news reporting' and therefore beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Jack Frost (talk) 13:13, 3 July 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.