Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apopudobalia

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Apopudobalia.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

---

What to do with this? You have to read carefully within the article, but it specifically says that this information is false. However, the falsity exists outside of Wikipedia. It's semi-famous false information. RickK 05:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

• Certainly deserves a rewrite rather than deletion. I'll take a shot. -- Jmabel 05:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, humorous hoax, but not for us. Fuzheado 05:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Amendment - perhaps this is a good time to create a standard MediaWiki disclaimer about these type of "fake" terms.
• I have now done a rewrite, which I think makes it entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. RickK, Fuzheado, would you please look at what I've done? I think that a literary hoax -- especially one in an encyclopedia, and which apparently partially "took in" some scholars in its field -- is a perfectly worthy topic for a Wikipedia article. With all due respect, it's a lot more relevant than articles about single episodes of TV shows, which we seem to tolerate. -- Jmabel 05:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Good job on rewrite. As long as it is clear it is a hoax, keep. Fuzheado 06:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and fascinating, a bit obscure perhaps but very well done and a good demonstration of why Wikipedia is so great IMO. Andrewa 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Now a keep - perfectly harmless. Charles Matthews 09:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Having read the rewritten version, I say "Keep!", most certainly! --Stormie 10:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Beautiful. Keep. I love hoaxes (see Sokal Affair). JFW | T@lk 11:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Hoaxes are cultural phenomena. This one just needs some TLC. Alcarillo 16:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in current form. People are quite likely to look up such things and a nice clear article stating that it's a hoax and explaining the background is fine. Nice article, in fact. Dpbsmith 20:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• A fine instance of a nihilartikel, albeit one that could still stand a little work. Definitely worthwhile to keep, though, as improved. Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, a fine rewrite, good job Jmabel Burgundavia 07:03, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Hey! If we aren't permitted to create our own nihilartikellen here, how come we can allow a self-referential one. It boggles the mind! It's like standing between two mirrors. I'm going to go away now and write a hoax article so devilishly clever no one will spot it, bwahahahaha! Denni 06:01, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---