Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Do not create hoaxes page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on May 19, 2009. The result of the discussion was SNOW keep. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
I am surprised to see WP:DWHOAX link to WP:PROD as a suggested remedy. WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions so we don't do much research there. Also, the strongest remedy offered by WP:PROD is WP:SOFTDELETE. I think we want stronger action taken for confirmed hoaxes. I think we should replace the WP:PROD link with WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have implemented this change. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Wouldn't it make sense to mention PROD first and use AFD if contested or controversial/complicated. See Template:Please prod. Normally if you can't confirm a topic exists its appropriate to PROD because even if its not a hoax its probably not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale please read the second paragraph at WP:DWHOAX. Suspected hoaxes should not be assumed to be uncontroversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: It says that they are generally not speedy deletion candidates but that doesn't mean they need to go to AFD. If PRODed they can be checked by other users. There is nothing saying that they are controversial just that they generally aren't speedy deletion candidates. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have little confidence that PRODs are reliably reviewed so I oppose changing this. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: It says that they are generally not speedy deletion candidates but that doesn't mean they need to go to AFD. If PRODed they can be checked by other users. There is nothing saying that they are controversial just that they generally aren't speedy deletion candidates. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale please read the second paragraph at WP:DWHOAX. Suspected hoaxes should not be assumed to be uncontroversial deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Wouldn't it make sense to mention PROD first and use AFD if contested or controversial/complicated. See Template:Please prod. Normally if you can't confirm a topic exists its appropriate to PROD because even if its not a hoax its probably not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The content described on Talk:Eric Braeden#Wilhelm Gustloff, about the alleged involvement of Titanic-actor Eric Braeden in the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff, appears to be a hoax that originated on Wikipedia in June 2018, and has since spread to numerous other Wikipedias and external sources, leading to WP:CITOGENESIS. It was removed from the English Wikipedia as a fabrication (per the edit summary) in November 2024, but remains on numerous other languages. I coincidentally stumbled upon the problem around the same time. Upon checking the available sources, I found it to be not credible. It was added back again today, which I reverted. Its coverage as fact by a number of popular social media channels did not help. This has been included in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Extant for 4–8 years 2. Renerpho (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)