Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reddit serial killer hoax

: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 merge to List of hoaxes. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Reddit serial killer hoax]]=

:{{la|Reddit serial killer hoax}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reddit_serial_killer_hoax Stats])

:({{Find sources|Reddit serial killer hoax}})

Does not seem to be notable. Notability tagger said, "one atlantic article is the only coverage outside of self coverage on edwired blog and the reddit/wikipedia pages". I've found no other proof of this being a notable hoax. Compare the related Edward Owens hoax, which had marginally more sourcing and was still deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to List of hoaxes. "Internet hoax" redirects to Hoax, but has very little coverage. I found two more: Boing Boing [http://boingboing.net/2012/05/16/reddit-culture-well-tuned-to-s.html ] and GigaOm [http://gigaom.com/2012/05/16/twitter-and-reddit-as-crowdsourced-fact-checking-engines/ ] both talk about this example in the wider context. So we have a few sources, and clearly this is a high-profile example of a failed Internet hoax, but it probably doesn't merit a separate article and our general summary of what an Internet hoax is frankly stinks. Someday "Hoaxes on the Internet" may be a good candidate for its own article... Steven Walling • talk 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect Little reliable sourcing, one event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:*What sources are you seeing that we aren't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge to List of hoaxes. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge both this and Edward Owens hoax to George Mason University's historical hoaxes. If the university does not like that title it should not teach the course that generated them. I agree that the sourcing is not good, but we will probably not do better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge - as Peterkingiorn says, both of the George Mason hoaxes to their own article, something like George Mason University's historical hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2013 (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.