Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Adam (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 redirect to Dragon Models Limited#John Adam hoax. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Adam (hoax)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically, this is nothing but news and old news. A hoax with no lasting significance by a group that apparently didn't exist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm kind of undecided here. My first inclination was to delete, but I did find some mention of this in various academic texts, which hold a little more weight than newspaper coverage. I wish that there was a good _target to merge this into. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books was published in 2010, which shows a bit of long term coverage. Still undecided, though. I'm going to keep looking for sources and just throw them onto the article and maybe give it a re-write later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... we could probably just merge this material into the article for the manufacturer. This is only a few paragraphs long and we could take out some of the extra details and just make it into a paragraph. I do think that this merits a mention somewhere, given that it's had long term coverage in academic texts, but I'm still undecided as to whether or not it merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "coverage" in the text was trivial passing mentions. You won't convince me without something that has at least a little bit of depth. This hoax has no lasting effect on Iraq, the US military, or the war. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having another look, the article Dragon Models Limited seems to cover this topic in an appropriate level of detail. So I think it makes sense to redirect this page there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added that info there with the anticipation that this would likely end with a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Models Limited. Good find. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Models Limited. That does seem to be the best way out of the quandry. Academic recognition and coverage of the topic does give it a sheen of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (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.