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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starlite[edit]

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

Highly Likely to be a hoax, Chemistry depiction makes no sense and has meaningless claims. No evidence of NASA having ever tested the substance Zubin12 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the material is a hoax or not, that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. It got plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Cf Cold fusion - should that article be deleted because it didn't really occur? Similarly Loch Ness monster? Ben Finn (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben Finn, and per WP:GNG. Even if it turns out to be a hoax, it had plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Equally, if we can find WP:RS stating that it's a hoax, we should add those too. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG. Continuing coverage, even was in Guinness. As for how fringey/hoaxy this is - that shoud be determined per the sourcing. If it is a hoax (seems something was tested) - it is a notable hoax.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is most definitely a hoax, a notable one given the number of people hoodwinked. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maurice Ward. None of the claims about the product are verifiable. I don't think it's notable enough as a hoax to justify a stand-alone article; also I can't find coverage that proves it's a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Maurice Ward into Starlite, which seems to be the only notable thing in Ward's background. It's possible the product is a hoax but that doesn't mean we should not have the article. (We have an article on the Cardiff Giant.)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone page Starlite, the nuclear blast..., The secret life of starlite... and many more sources. Whatever this product is, it is certainly notable, so we should describe what it is instead of deleting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be enough references and coverage even if it is a hoax. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hoax or not, it is notable. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is appropriately skeptical about the claims of this 'invention' and instead recounts media coverage attempting to expose the hoax. Follows WP:NHOAX perfectly. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Maurice Ward here. He's only really notable for his promotion of this substance, and while there are certainly enough sources to say one or other is notable, it doesn't seem worth having 2 separate articles. Substance seems more notable than man based on source titles/headlines etc, although it's hard to do a direct comparison because of other Starlites and Maurice Wards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2018 (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.