Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyoming Incident

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, not likely to be notable. Sr13 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyoming Incident

Wyoming Incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Minor Internet hoax. No good secondary sources exist; contradictory information abounds. Thunderbunny 04:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't delete. Im sure alot of people who see the video come here because they're wondering "What the hell was that". This article probably helps them out.--jonrev 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• For one thing, this is generally considered a bad argument in AfD discussions. For another, the article really isn't written very well, and therefore raises more questions than it answers. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not written well? Excuse me? I've seen your articles, Thunderbunny, and you're not exactly Noah Webster, either. And Jonrev has a point. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless secondary sources can be found. This article relies solely on primary sources, which can be used to corroborate the veracity of secondary sources but do not in themselves fulfill WP:RS. I frankly don't see how an internet video qualifies as noteworthy. --Nonstopdrivel 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now There's nothing to suggest, at the moment, that this thing got any press coverage outside Wyoming. Though, Max Headroom started small, but I'd be crystalballing if I said it was the next Max Headroom.--Ispy1981 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Er...it didn't get any press coverage in Wyoming, either. The event didn't actually happen. A remote location in Wyoming was specifically chosen for its lack of population. Thunderbunny 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Something Awful. It's notable enough for the information itself to be useful, but not enough for its own article. Since it centers on a prank by Something Awful members, it is worth listing among the other SA pranks in that article. Rob T Firefly 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not really...the "prank" (I'm not even sure this can be called that...it seems more like an ARG that someone got tired of running) didn't make it off the SA forums. And, to make matters more confusing, SenorBambos is now denying that anyone from SA produced the videos. This is the main reason why external sources are necessary to make a viable Wikipedia entry. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this is supposed to be a notable prank, though it sounds rather feeble to me . What RSs have written about it and said so. ?

• Delete per the above anonymous editor. --Haemo 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it's interesting (and notable) on a number of levels: as an internet prank/meme, as an (imaginary) broadcast signal intrusion, and just because the videos are awfully spooky. It's worth an article. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed you didn't include "it has some decent secondary sources" in that list. Thunderbunny 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should tell me why you're so hot to delete this all of a sudden, hmmm? RMc 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• You know, your petulant little harassment campaign isn't really helping your cause here. Thunderbunny 03:34, 23 June 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.