Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurley-Pugh

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 a non-notable hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurley-Pugh

Hurley-Pugh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Apparent hoax Eddie.willers 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, not a hoax see http://www.hurley-pugh.co.uk here Alf^Photoman 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment in response. Excuse me, the website is a hoax. Also, see the text at the bottom of the source code for the article: hoax|reason=Anything concerning the Hurley Pugh is entirely fictional. The purpose of any related documentation and anecdotes concerning the Hurley Pugh is intended to satirise the British motorcycle manufacturing industry. The marque was invented for the purposes of entertainment only. The article does appear to be suitable for Wikipedia, but more sources are needed to determine that it is a fictional bike
    • Further Comments This is a very clever hoax that seems to have fooled a lot of people. Let's look at some additional 'evidence' from the quoted website and Fisk a few comments...
• The site claims that the factory archives were discovered in the "Linenhall Thinking Orangemen's Library" in Belfast. There is no such place but this is clearly a reference to the real Linen Hall Library in that same town.
• The site claims that a military version of one machine, the HP90AM 1600, had a mounting for a Bren Gun. The Bren gun did not enter service until 1938, was a two-man weapon, and only ever vehicle mounted on to conventional four-wheel armoured troop carriers.
• The site claims to have recordings from the works canteen - assuming that the 'company' ceased trading in 1943 then how were these recordings made in the days before magnetic tape, and the common use of the wire recorder?
• The rider Sidney "Forelock" Tuggings has a short biography in which it is claimed he served in the Royal Engineers and attained the rank of Acting Lance-Sapper - there is not,and never was, any such rank.
  • • • Ohhh, god...need I go on? The will to live is slipping awaaaaay.....Eddie.willers 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • • • BUT WAIT, there's more! The Hurley-Pugh website is registered to a Mr Ivor Benjamin of London, E8. Its registration date coincides with the demise of the magazine 'Motorcycle International' - who carried spoof articles under the name 'Fettler'. Ivor Benjamin is also involved in other spoof projects such as this spoof Christmas letter (that namechecks Hurley-Pugh) at http://www.gland.freeserve.co.uk/gfxmas99.html
• Keep, but the article should be clear that it is a hoax, albeit a very clever and detailed one. HokieRNB 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename Hurley-Pugh Hoax. Instead of superficially checking the internet I should have checked my brand catalog, sorry. It is interesting just to show how far a hoax can go over the internet. Then again I should have seen that it is a hoax by just reading the page until the 10 cylinder bike. As far as I know the most cylinders ever on a motorcycle were seven (star engine in the front wheel) around 1890 Alf^Photoman 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do we have sufficient third-party coverage of this hoax to keep the article? This does not seem so clear to me. But in any case, the article in its current form is entirely unacceptable as it is participating in the hoax rather than uncovering and detailing it as it should. I suggest that if this is kept, the article be indeed moved to Hurley-Pugh Hoax and edited accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be established that this is a "notable" hoax. If kept, I agree with Alf Photoman that the article should identify it as a hoax. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Weak Keep and Rename per Alf_photoman to Hurley-Pugh hoax. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete - It's been a week and nobody has established that it is a notable hoax; and even if it was, it would still fall to someone to re-write the article to make its hoaxiness clear. Nobody is volunteering, so let's get rid of it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:27, 1 April 2007 (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.