The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real

[edit]

I request that Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruda_Real be deleted due to not being a hoax. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD filed on behalf of IP 100.7.36.213. Also per discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Ruda Real. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see any evidence presented that the deletion nor the reason are incorrect. Only sources provided in claiming it's not a hoax is discogs, which is ugen and a YT video and I can't really find anything in newspaper archives or books. In fact, the only book that mentions Ruda Real (Kairuba Brown) was published well after our article and appears to be sourced to WP. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grudging delete but would much rather have not held this MFD at all. By way of background, there was a talk page discussion where several editors came to the conclusion that the evidence that Ruda Real was a hoax wasn't that strong. 100.7 then started an extended discussion on the talk page after the matter was seemingly settled demanding a separate discussion page, or an RFC, or some Formal Wikipedia Grand Council or the like to talk about a forgotten deleted article, which was all terrifically unneeded. For 100.7..., the IP address who wants to talk about this article over and over... think about it this way. Either Real is a hoax or he isn't. If he is a hoax, then letting this page lie is correct. If he's real but the content was false/exaggerated from vandalism, there's no need to highlight it by constantly demanding discussions of it (WP:DENY). If the article was good faith, then he's a case of someone deeply non-notable getting WP:Vanispamcruftisement. Wikipedians deal with literally hundreds of attempts to create vanity articles every day. There's no need to highlight this one particular piece, demand RFCs on the talk page, and stick it on a pedestal for people to vote on here. I was convinced that 100.7 was a vandal himself at first whose style of vandalism was to find a contested issue and yell loudly to everyone nearby to try to make them flames burn hotter (even though he is *technically* agreeing with me here). I'm willing to grant good faith now, but even so, this MFD is deeply counterproductive. I recommend reading the CIA guide to disrupting organizations - "talk as frequently as possible and at great length", "bring up irrelevant issues", "refer back to matters decided upon", etc. I suppose I would prefer the article be deleted because there's no good evidence that it's actually a hoax if pressed for a position, but would much rather just let sleeping dogs lie. SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally considering that it was just someone trying to spam a nn artist but considering the IP geolocates to the same area that the ip that created it did (who was also blocked for block evasion and hoaxes back in the day), I'm not so sure AGF entirely applies, nor can I imagine why it's so necessary for this to be removed, especially considering that the basis for their removal is that it's about a real person which no one can seem to verify ever existed, anywhere. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the talk page discussion, it does appear that there was a real person named Kairuba Brown who died [1] , and Wayback Machine verifies this was uploaded in 2013. How much the deleted article has to do with the real Brown, I have no idea, but it seems credibly possible that the article was basically accurate but about someone non-notable, or was a case of vandalism but also about someone non-notable (which is even worse, we don't generally highlight and enshrine such ghoulishness in a museum by policy, WP:DENY). SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too have read the actual obituary itself and it doesn't appear that it's remotely related. This was a straight up hoax that sat for years, I see no reason, including WP:DENY to delete it, especially given the lackluster circumstances of the request. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to let sleeping dogs lie, I'd be more than happy to oblige. I always intended for this MFD to be the last time I bring Ruda Real up anyways. Just know that I completely regret starting that extended discussion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Praxidicae, I’m failing to see any strong evidence this wasn’t largely a hoax. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the nominator not explaining why the page is not a hoax. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Ruda_Real. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.