Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraudulent hoax

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent hoax

Delete. Changed from a speedy candidate to a VfD nomination by the author's (User:SamuraiClinton) request. Simply not needed – both Fraud and Hoax are adequately covered in their respective articles, and an article on Fraudulent hoaxes, whatever that might mean, would only dilute the content. Note that the author also added merge directives to Fraud and Hoax without giving any real reason why such a merger would be appropriate. Also note that an RfC is ongoing for SamuraiClinton. android↔talk 00:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• This article was made so that content from fraud and hoax that mention them being used on each other could belong here. I think we should keep this. --TheSamurai 23:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article doesn't make any sense. "Fraudulent hoax" gets less than 100 distinct hits on Google; it simply isn't a term with enough currency in the real world to warrant its own separate article. It's more than sufficient for fraud and hoax to link to each other; there doesn't need to be a breakout article for when the two overlap. Bearcat 00:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, won't become an article, dictdef at best. Tempshill 00:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think it's a reasonable idea, frauds and hoaxes are similar enough to be merged. Unfortunately hoaxes are pretty much all fraudulent, so this wouldn't be the way to do it. Kappa 01:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think they're pretty different concepts. Hoaxes are an attempt to spread misinformation (i.e. "Good Times" email virus warnings) while frauds are deceptive schemes run for profit (i.e. pyramid scams). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is no more necessary than an article on Untrue lies. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Has about as much meaning as the phrase "Non notable School". Klonimus 04:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ...or "inclusionist trivia." --Calton | Talk 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So is there any difference between "fraud" and "fraudulent hoax"?--Calton | Talk 06:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Fraud refers to schemes for personal, usually material, gain, hoax to pranks and jokes that might produce fame or notorierity but no direct material benefits. (Of course, the difference may blur in some of the tricks of P.T. Barnum that were exhibited for money). The problem may be with the term "fraudulent" which in effect means "false". In this context, "fraudulent hoax" would mean "a hoax that does not exist". More reason for delete, in fact... - Skysmith 08:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with reasoning of Skysmith and Starblind. Mgm|^(talk) 08:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article serves no discrete purpose and has nothing in it worth salvaging. Naturenet 12:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the others. Oliver Keenan 14:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of my arguments have already been made by others. hydnjo talk 15:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same here. --Djacobs 20:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete SamuraiClintoncruft. RickK 23:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What everybody else said. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Rhobite 00:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 09:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful. Wmahan. 04:15, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Delete I hate to destroy someones intellectual submissions, but this just isn't proper here. --Fritz9000 07:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.