Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldock Beer Disaster

Add links
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. Although the argument for keeping it as a hoax was valid, this isn't currently supported by Wikipedia policy, at least not without independent evidence of notability. Waltontalk 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldock Beer Disaster

[edit]
Baldock_Beer_Disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
  • Speedy Delete This 'event' did not happen and the article is a hoax. I have lived and worked in Baldock for 26 years and have never heard of it. Nor has Vivian Crellin, who is cited as an authority for it. He has not heard of the book that the article claims that he wrote. None of the local history books that I have consulted mention the 'disaster'. Wikipedia is not the place for this 'article'. Jack1956 15:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - per WP:HOAX.--Edtropolis 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC) This user has just been indefinitely blocked as a SPA DGG 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if this wasnt a hoax, it still isn't notable. Resolute 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do have to admire a hoaxer who cites an article by 'A. Pedant' in the sources section. Delete -- BPMullins | Talk 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the references are obviously fake.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a complete hoax article. Acalamari 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a STRONG WARNING that this is a hoax. Before you say that's nuts, think about it. This one stayed up long enough that the false information has polluted the Internet worldwide. It's scary to see how many websites have copied, word for word, the "beer disaster" article and cited it as history. It's an internet version of Mencken's Bathtub hoax. Rather than pretending that it never happened, Mencken went on to point out that it had been totally false; had he not done so, it would have continued to be repeated until Mencken was discredited as a liar. Unfortunately, if you simply delete the article, or blank it, the websites crediting this to Wikipedia will remain-- and assumed to be true. On the other hand, if someone looks for the "beer disaster" and finds that Wikipedia advises that the article was found to be untrue, the urban legend is quickly dispelled. Will Wikipedia be discredited? Not a bit. Wiki remains the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it's an acknowledgment that such freedom will not get in the way of the truth. I would argue that it's a responsibility, since Wikipedia was, because of it's philosophy of freedom, unintentionally responsible for the spread of an urban legend. The New York Times and the Washington Post have been victims of haxes (In the Land of the Khmer Rouge and Jimmy's World, respectively) and were all the more respected when they discovered and corrected the error. Mandsford 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A convincing argument, that basically comes down to Notable hoaxes are notable. This may be similar to the idea of keeping information about unaccredited institutions and similar organizations. our main purpose is not a consumer watchdog, nor is it to guarantee authenticity. But as a matter of fact, we 'are relied on to a considerable extent; this is why we are careful to remove articles on thoroughly NN individuals, to remove unreferenced BLP, to have articles that are readable and sourced, to be accurate, to maintain NPOV in politically charged situations,to have as broad coverage of notable subjects as possible--to live up to the goal of being a reliable information source. As a consequence of that, N hoaxes are N, and the history of how we were fooled for so long. DGG
  • Strong Delete I don't buy Mandsford's argument. If the article's about the hoax, it certainly doesn't discuss that aspect of this. Given WP's traffic and all the mirrors virtually anything that one puts in here that sneaks through for a while becomes a "notable" hoax. So if someone thinks that the Baldock Beer Disaster Hoax is Notable, like it has been covered by the RSes we expect to establish notability, write that article and let's just get rid of this cute bit of fiction pretending to be fact. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please note that it was not discovered to be a hoax until May 21, when an alert reader identified as LordJuss began to question it. I wish that the hoax had been perpetrated elsewhere, and that we could write about it as if it was the Howard Hughes autobiography. But it's in our backyard. If it had been found right away, erasing it and pretending that it never existed would make sense. By no means am I trying to celebrate this bit of vandalism. However, this stayed up here from November '05 until now, and this "cute bit of fiction" has, unfortunately, been cited as Wikipedia fact by a lot of sources. I have taken DGG's suggestion and labelled this for the hoax that it is. Delete it anyway, I don't care, but I think that if it's wished away, there will be a lot of people who look for it, don't find it, and still believe that this is in Wikipedia. Frankly, this is where we've failed as editors. This shouldn't have stayed up for 18 hours, let alone 18 months, and there's nothing cute about it. Mandsford 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax with falsified sources, and no sources to indicate it's a notable hoax. Everything staying for a while in Wikipedia is mirrored at many unedited sites. The current [1] rewrite by Mandsford to describe the hoax is largely original research and partially false. For example, the article was questionned [2] on the talk page in 2005. General discussions about Wikipedia belong in articles about Wikipedia, for example Reliability of Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia. If a reliable source discussing this story can be found then it might be mentioned in another article. It would take a lot to get its own article. PrimeHunter 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We cannot keep this hoax just because its been on here for a long time or because other sites have mirrored it. There is the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia to be considered and allowing things like that to stay damages that integrity and reputation, leaving us open to further attacks of a similar nature. I say delete quickly before more harm is done. Alternatively, send it to WP:BJAODN Jack1956 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I've changed the title back to the original, "Baldock Beer Disaster", and removed the added verbage. I think you're correct that to change the title to BBD(Hoax) would encourage more of the same and cause further confusion. By the same token, I don't think that one can simply remove the article. Plenty of harm has been done already, and the approach of ignoring it actually adds to the harm. Most deleted articles are wiped clean, the Wikipedia search turns up empty, and there's no clue as to what was there. Based on the unusual circumstances of this case (19 months without anyone noticing the extremely "original research") and its citation, I think it's important to place a statement that (1) the article was a hoax and that (2)the remaining text has been deleted. As to integrity and reputation, I cite again the New York Times and the Washington Post, whose reputation for integrity did not suffer. I don't know if anyone remembers Janet Cooke, but if the Post had simply let her go without comment, its reputation would have been further tarnished. Mandsford 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be kept as a hoax only if outside secondary sources can establish its notability. Otherwise, delete. — goethean ॐ 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after a rewrite and move to Baldock Beer Disaster hoax. It has been on wiki for almost two years which has spawned similar articles in other places. A delete would increase the possibility of the hoax being recreated based on hoaxes in other media. See this list for similar cases. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Google on "Baldock Beer Disaster" [3] says "about 353" results, but clicking through them stops after 31 results, where Google says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 31 already displayed" (probably more mirrored content). Repeating the search including omitted results stops after 80 hits. I see Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia with no editor, forums, blogs. I haven't found a single reliable source. A lot of false information is removed from Wikipedia every day. We should not keep the information except rare cases where multiple reliable sources have written about it. And if we don't have a reliable source saying it was a hoax, then it would violate our own policies to claim it's a hoax. Creating or keeping articles about non-notable hoaxes or other nonsense will just encourage more people to add them. PrimeHunter 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe Listify. I see the point of - after all this time and mirroring - not letting all traces disappear. So in any case the talk page with reference to this AfD should remain. On the other hand this is not a notable hoax in the sense that reliable external sources have written about it as if true or uncovered the hoax. Having been created in and mirrored from Wikipedia does not amount to notability and removing the main article is therefor part of the necessary correction. So maybe it can be included in a List of hoaxes that originated in Wikipedia.--Tikiwont 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:HOAX, hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. This one does not appear notable, because (except for the mirror sites) there is no reliable evidence that anyone in the external world was fooled, except for a few mentions on small web sites. (See the findings of PrimeHunter above). As insurance against recreating this particular hoax, I suggest that the name be salted. The AfD will obviously stay around as a reminder of the problem. There is also a helpful list in user space at User:Shii/Hoaxes to which this article could be added. EdJohnston 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent rewrite but still needs another source or two as proving it an hoax, if possible. Somehow it has escaped notice that Wikipedia is important. DGG 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can prove it is a hoax as I know Vivian Crellin and I have asked him. He did not write the book cited [it doesn't exist] and he says the 'beer disaster' didn't happen and he is Baldock's leading historian. How else do you prove that something didn't happen? Delete Jack1956 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable hoax by people with too much time on their hands. Edison 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final word I've added to the article that any persons who wish to be certain of its inauthenticity can read the New York Times online, which includes issues from 1900 to 1907, at www.nyt.ulib.org; there is mention of the loss of a British steamer off the coast of Australia in the March 15, 1904 issue. It was one hell of a hoax... its notability was in getting past the checks and balances of Wikipedia. I'll add that Wikipedia no longer permits unregistered users to create articles, which is what happened in this instance, by a person identified only by an IP address; it will be more difficult for it to happen again Mandsford 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A general way to prove non-existence (not prove 100%, but pretty near) is to cross-search: If you find other things about the town of equal & lesser significance, but not this event; & similar and lesser mining disasters, but not the one here, it is reasonably certain not to exist. DGG 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the article will mean people will find the old ones in the mirrors. We do have a certain responsibility to publicly compensate for our errors. DGG 19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely our responsibilty is to maintain the integrity of WP, which people look to for genuine information. They will not look here if they cannot trust the honesty of that information. It is not our fault if others mirror our content. Jack1956 19:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly--the media which do not admit their disasters are not reliable and trustworthy. No sensible person could possibly think that WP has never contained misinformation and mistakes and deliberate hoaxes. We prove our general integrity by making our failures visible. It's wise to do so ourselves, before our enemies do. Which would you rather hear: "WP was so stupid as to fall for a hoax, and confirmed their stupidity by trying to conceal the evidence" or "Wikipedia was stupid enough to fall for a hoax, and wise enough to admit it."DGG 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reasons to delete: (1) Fails WP:N, (2) No way to WP:ATT statements to any WP:RS for this, (3) WP:HOAX calls hoaxes vandalism, and vandalism is usually deleted, (4) Keeping this may encourage others to create hoaxes in WP, for if they are kept around long enough, they might be saved by the community to alert others. Reasons to keep: (1) Alerts people who have been misinformed that this was a hoax started at Wikipedia, (2) may look 'better' to media (although may look worse if seen as caving to hoaxters). Antelan talk 20:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need a speedy decision on this from someone, or it's just going to drag on. It seems that the majority are in favour of deleting. Jack1956 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many mirrors will later update their Wikipedia dump and delete the article if Wikipedia did. Many hoax articles survive some time without ever being mentioned in reliable sources. If people really want us to tell about it, then don't make individual articles repeating the full hoax text. You can suggest a new List of Wikipedia hoaxes or something like that and keep them together with title and short text for each (I'm not saying I support that idea). Each listed hoax title could redirect to the list. However, false claims in real articles get more attention and are a much bigger problem in my opinion. And I definitely don't think we should list non-notable false deleted claims. PrimeHunter 22:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although newspapers publish their errata, if we were to create a list of known Wikipedia hoaxes it might just encourage the hoaxers by giving them a form of immortality. It is less of a problem for us when we write about hoaxes that exist in the external world without a Wikipedia article being the original means of deception. EdJohnston 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN it That or nuke it. Enough said by the delete !votes already. Kwsn(Ni!) 04:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ffs. It's a hoax. Hoaxes don't get special treatment for existing a long time, and existing as a wikipedia article for X number of years doesn't make something notable, or else we'd have to undelete Elephant (wikipedia article). GassyGuy 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The now userified link is [4], I'll send it to Del Rev when we are a little more mature about such things--it had Colbert, Washington Post, and CBS news as sources. DGG 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding... They deleted an article about the Elephant controversy? Geez, the news report (on NPR) about this is what first led me to log on to Wikipedia. Before that, it was just another website and one I didn't think was very reliable. Since the Colbert publicity, I would add, the wikiarticles have climbed the charts on google, which lists the most viewed articles first. I agree with you that this site could use a little bit (recognized as an understatement)more maturity. One problem with the deletion process is that it takes a certain personality to want to seek out and destroy something in the first place. Not all nominators are humorless, intolerant or narrowly-focused but such traits are often present for a person on a mission. Another problem is that, since no AfD discussion (by definition) begins with "Keep", there are then a lot of followers (converts, if you will) who chime in, often citing chapter and verse of Wikiscripture. In many cases, there's a near unanimous agreement on things that never should have been... but the idea that deletions should be decided by counting votes is kind of silly. Let's vote on whether the world is flat or round... 7 to 5, it's flat. I'm sure if you left it up to 3rd graders, fractions would be deleted from the curriculum. Mandsford 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Lord! I cited that article because it was an obvious delete. The article itself fails Wikipedia's notability standard of HAVING NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES. The Colbert elephant thing was covered and is still on Wikipedia in a proper article about the Colbert Report, possibly elsewhere. This has no merge target because neither the article nor the incident meets Wikipedia's primary notability criterion of coverage by multiple non-trivial sources. Forget WP:POKEMON and forget some sort of subjective and non-guideline/non-policy "need" to correct the info that's been mirrored - it fails all keep criteria. Why is this still even open? GassyGuy 09:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As is often said, AfD is not a vote. See for example WP:AFD and WP:VOTE. PrimeHunter 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into the Wikipedia: namespace, or userfy to User:Shii for inclusion on User:Shii/Hoaxes. Clearly the article has no real sources, so it is not appropriate for the main namespace. However, it is useful for Wikipedians to reference cases of onwiki hoaxes. John Vandenberg 03:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd still stick with delete; this is like Henryk Batuta except a non-notable hoax - not written about in independent sources. Are we dealing with something rare though, here? A Wikipedia hoax that lasted even longer than the 'notable' hoax on the Polish Wikipedia?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. 29 ghits, all of which copy from this fake Wikipedia article. None are reliable sources. Probably unheard of outside the Internet.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:52, 30 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baldock_Beer_Disaster&oldid=1068825867"