Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argusto Emfazie
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 as hoax. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable obscure occultist. I suspect it is a hoax, which would be interesting, as it has been around since 2002. Leibniz 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with deep, deep regret. It's a very badly-written article, but the subject, as a published, and apparrently reviewed author, does seem to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. David Mestel(Talk) 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am getting over 4000 ghits: [1]. Yet I can't find Emfazie in the Library of congress. This really looks like a hoax to me. It was created from an AOL account in 2002 and subsequently wikified by others. Leibniz 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. This does indeed appear to be a WP:HOAX that started here and spread like a virus. I was unable to find information on any of the books supposedly authored by Emfazie. See search results for Eagle Blocking Sun, A Hand of Clay, and The Remercie Por Grazie. Next, I tried to verify the single source provided, Jeremy Delomite of the Doughton Review. Apparently no such person or publication. Every single one of these search results, sometimes 90+ per search term, is a mirror of this Wikipedia article reprinted under the GNU. This article, which has been around since February 2002, is a perfect example of why WP:V is so critically important. Great catch by Leibniz. --Satori Son 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looks like really notable, and making history, as a hoax. Just to be sure, as 'The Remercie Por Grazie' was supposed to be the only famous work and the title means 'The Thanks For Thankfulness', that the article's author had not created one title from a work that was published in two languages, as 'The Remercie' and as 'Por Grazie': The latter is only found preceeded by the first, when 'Emfazie' occurs – just as in the article. Indeed I too found only identical texts and a few clear derivates, Wikipedia is bigger than itself... The text is doomed to survive for years to come. — SomeHuman 3 Oct2006 23:01 (UTC)
- This may sound crazy, but... besides wondering whether I should print it, frame it, and hang it above my bed – a hoax that survives for 4 years is something like an urban legend. Nowadays one actually studies urban legends. I assume at some time academics could become interested in getting the original hoax article and its possible early changes. One might examine it for its methods to survive so long, etc. Would there be a way to insert a box 'historical hoax' at the top of the article and protect it indefinitely, maintaining the history?
For the record, the IP address used to create the article, has no other contributions on Wikipedia (unless a username would have been created for further activities). — SomeHuman 3 Oct2006 23:39 (UTC)- I've kept a copy of the page in my user space as a trophy. But if someone ever wants to do a study of how this hoax persisted and spread, they might like to have the page history and incoming links as well. Perhaps it could be linked from WP:HOAX somewhere. Leibniz 10:37, 4 October 2006 (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.