Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henryk Batuta hoax

:{{la|Henryk Batuta hoax}} ([{{fullurl:Henryk Batuta hoax|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henryk Batuta hoax}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable navel-gazing. A hoax article on the Polish Wikipedia that led to brief blurbs in the Observer and a couple Polish sources. Haven't read the Polish sources, but the Observer "article" is basically a three paragraph space-filler, hardly what I would consider significant coverage. The first few words of the "Batuta as an example of using Wikis as references" section ("In academic discussions . . .") sounds promising, but it turns out that those, er, "academic" discussions were held on Second Life. The article itself states "[a]s the meeting took place in the Virtual World of SecondLife, there is no record immediately available to investigators outside of SecondLife except for this Wikipedia entry that the Henryk Batuta story has been used as a tool for debate". Sigh... Badger Drink (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable hoaxers trying to generate publicity for themselves. People vandalise Wikipedia every day. Newspapers use it as a source of information. Where's the surprise in yet another article. Perhaps it has a place on Polish Wikipedia but it really doesn't here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: this has coverage in most of the major Polish papers: [http://www.rp.pl/artykul/216666.html Rzeczpospolita], [http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/article7587/Tlum_stworzyl_encyklopedie.html?service=print Gość Niedzielny], [http://akson.sgh.waw.pl/~ppolak/informatyka/Fikcyjny%20komunista%20Batuta.pdf Gazeta Wyborcza], [http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/article7587/Tlum_stworzyl_encyklopedie.html?service=print Dziennik], and the [http://www.wiadomosci24.pl/artykul/jaka_jestes_wikipedio_49055.html Wiadomości24.pl] information service. A couple of Scholar hits, too: the case is mentioned [http://www.ebib.info/2006/73/hofmokl_tarkowski.php here] in the Bulletin of the [http://www.ebib.info/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=29 Polish Librarians' Association], and [http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_pdf/ementor13.pdf here] in the online journal of the Warsaw School of Economics. That all looks to me like significant coverage in reliable sources, or notablity. I'd be inclined to see the Observer piece as significant coverage, too, since the story is the sole focus of that article. I count [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/feb/12/wikipedia.web20 five paragraphs], which is more than an "And finally..." fluff piece. I agree the Second Life stuff should go, though. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete the sources are interesting but dozens of hoaxes are deleted weekly if not daily, this one is slightly more involved but not at all worthy of an article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::I'd agree (god knows I've CSD'd some garbage), if this particular hoax hadn't received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the bottom line for notability. The dozens we delete daily don't. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I think in this case that having significant coverage cannot be viewed as the only criteria for inclusion. We have many many policies and guidelines and I feel having an article about a wikipedia hoax is contrary to many of them and definitely is contrary to the spirit of this encyclopedia. Beach drifter (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Which policies and guidelines specifically do you think this article would contravene? I'm willing to be convinced on this, I just want some firm reasons. I sort of feel as though if these articles were from six major US or British newspapers, we wouldn't be having the debate. Nine other-language Wikipedias have versions of the article (it survived [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Henryk_Batuta/Suppression an AfD in the French Wikipedia]), and I'm concerned that we retain a global perspective. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Not seeing a strong indication that this is significant enough to warrant its own article. If deletion is not an option, my second choice is to merge this into a broader article on the topic (or a section of Wikipedia article). Could probably put the Siegenthaler thing in there too. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It was a notable event in Poland, and is quite a notable event in the history of Polish Wikipedia. There is plenty of reliable Polish sources discussing this. Let's avoid WP:BIAS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::I would appreciate not being accused of cultural bias for my views as to the notability, or lack thereof, of this bad Polish article. The Badger Drink's Mom's Cookie Jar Controversy of the 1980s was a pretty notable event in my household, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Same with the Steel Plates Placed Haphazardly Along a Certain Street in Montgomery County, Maryland, Causing Traffic Snarls and Ruined Suspensions Controversy of 2009 - it's of note for those living and commuting in this particular city, but it's certainly not of encyclopedic merit! For the purposes of Wikipedia, events are either notable or they're not. There's no such thing as "only notable along these certain geographical coordinates", and to propose that there are such things is ridiculous. Badger Drink (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::In fact, to argue that " is notable in " seems to undermine its very notability. If it were truly notable, it would also be mentioned in , , and . The fact that it's not mentioned in or , and only mentioned briefly in , raises the question, "is the subject covered in due to its being a truly notable event, or more due to it being ?". Badger Drink (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm aware of the weakness of the "other stuff exists" argument, but we must have tens of thousands of articles - probably hundreds - that only cite (and probably only could cite) coverage from a single country. There are scores of local politicians and sports players, for example, who are perfectly notable but unlikely covered outside their country of origin, even in other English-speaking countries. The notability guideline says nothing about international breadth of coverage, and if we extend this logic we render reams of content in Wikipedia open to the same objection. (In any case, the UK Observer articles shows that this one has merited attention outside Poland.) Gonzonoir (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Its a completely irrelevant event, good enough for your avarage early afternoon 15 minute TV shows about which celebrities broke up with another, but for an online encyclopedia, it a storm in a glass of water. Kurfürst (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep I didn't know this story but it is most certainly interesting and i don't see any reasons to delete it. Loosmark (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Move to WP namespace. In line with the point I tried to make about three and half years ago, this definitely is a notable internet phenomenon. However, although Wikipedia is part of the "real world", we should be careful not to become too self-referential. I think moving this to the Wikipedia namespace, while keeping a redirect in the article namespace, is a reasonable compromise. This leaves us with the problem of all the other language versions of this article, but you've got to start somewhere, and .en is probably to the second-best place to start this move. @Badger Drink: "to argue that " is notable in " seems to undermine its very notability". Uh, sorry, but no. Being an international project, notability in one country establishes notability across Wikipedia. "I would appreciate not being accused of cultural bias for my views as to the notability, or lack thereof, of this bad Polish article. The Badger Drink's Mom's Cookie Jar Controversy of the 1980s was a pretty notable event in my household, doesn't mean it's encyclopedic." Unlike your household, Poland is a notable place, so the comparison is slightly flawed. If you can't see the difference, there must be some sort of bias in your cognition, although calling it "cultural" might be overstating it. ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:*History of Wikipedia is notable, so is Polish Wikipedia. Perhaps we could create history of Polish Wikipedia article and integrate the hoax there - but I still think it is notable as a standalone event. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

::*I agree that History of Polish Wikipedia deserves a bluelink. If this incident can be shown to have lasting impact on that project, then it would be appropriate to mention - as long as said lasting impact is demonstrated and the event placed into its proper context (whatever that may be). Badger Drink (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Thorsten, feel free to explain to me how Montgomery County, Maryland is somehow un-notable. If it is notable, then surely that traffic snarl, covered in both the Rockville Gazette and Montgomery Journal (reputable, albiet local and red-linked, newspapers), should, by this astoudingly daft notion you promote, be notable? Of course it isn't, and neither is this very localized, very brief and fleeting incident, of no lasting repercussion (SecondLife chat be damned). I'm not quite sure why this would belong in WP namespace - maybe the erstwhile Polish Wikipedia does things a bit differently, but here, something like that would probably be placed on meta or meatball. Badger Drink (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::*Wheater reports are even more covered, but they are not encyclopedic. Neither is local traffic report, nor your kitchen mishap. This Wikipedia hoax, however, is encyclopedic. That's the difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::*@Badger Drink: "feel free to explain to me how Montgomery County, Maryland is somehow un-notable." Badger, feel free to read more carefully and discover that there is a slight but decisive difference in spelling between country and county. Or are you promoting the "astoudingly daft notion" that as a place, Montgomery County, Maryland is of equal or similar importance as Poland? en.wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the world, not about the U.S. or things of particular interest to the U.S. (or any other English-speaking country). The Batuta hoax made nationwide headline news in Poland, on the same level as the Seigenthaler hoax in the U.S. By your logic, Seigenthaler should have to be purged from .pl, too. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep: nominator admits to not having read the main sources. Seems a clear case of cultural bias. Thorsten1 sets it out very clearly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep He who does not known his history is doomed to repeat it. Pustelnik (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.