Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangerinegate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. The consensus is clearly to delete (and salvageable material has been added elsewhere as per Fences&Windows's comment). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangerinegate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOT#NEWS anyone? The fact that a pair of noted papers temporarily and briefly took note of this hoax doesn't make it important. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The event fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT for having no historical significance whatsoever. The article's title is a neologism: [1]. — Rankiri (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is exactly the kind of thing WP:NOTNEWS is for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangerinegate is a small controversy but it is an example of the media getting things wrong. Should it be merged into another article? Should there be a new article on the Brown bullying allegations? Spidergareth (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Or just merge with the Robert Popper page MagicBez (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason to keep? Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be kept in the Popper article since it is a notable aspect of Poppers career. It is also important because a major news organization was hoaxed. It should be included in another article, Poppers is probably the place for it. Spidergareth (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this can be safely deleted per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTTWITTER. Or perhaps WP:NOTNEWS. A very brief comment about this could be added to Robert Popper, as he did successfully hoax The Telegraph, but the title is not a likely search term and the material isn't usable. Fences&Windows 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I will add it into Robert Popper. Spidergareth (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin, please note that material from this article was selectively merged into Robert Popper by Spidergareth without attribution. I have made a note at Talk:Robert Popper on the history of the article, which satisfies the Wikipedia license, so this article may be deleted (if there is consensus to do so). Fences&Windows 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: it's certainly WP:NOTNEWS. --Duncan (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete now article has been merged. Spidergareth (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: Never happened, no story to tell. --h-stt !? 11:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but merge + redirect to Robert Popper --Chuunen Baka (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the story gets bigger and wider. I note that some of the story has been merged into Robert Popper, I see no reason not the merge the rest, too. 81.102.127.62 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a newsrag. Woogee (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, ::The importance is that two separate major UK news organisations were duped into printing fiction as fact. The hoax fits completely in with the current image of Gordon Brown being a bully, with new revelations and denials coming out frequently in the UK presently. Kev (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it needs expanding as an example of cognitive illusion?
- Keep why is Tangerinegate disallowed when Thatchergate is permitted?
- Delete. It's sad that this is even being defended as encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWSNiteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS Not a likely search term, so a redirect is counter-indicated. --Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (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.