This is an archive of the discussion of Rough Creek Ranch, a hoax article that was deleted. It has been copied here solely for the purpose of documenting hoaxes on Wikipedia, in order to improve our detection and understanding of them. If you would like to actually make a comment on this page or the discussion you see below, please go to Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Between 18 February and 23 February 2010 a series of edits added a settlement infobox and description of Rough Creek Ranch as community of one person. The prose was written in bureaucratic style (e.g. "There was 1 household out of which 0.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 0.0% were married couples living together, 0.0% had a female householder" etc.). It appears that this parody may have been written as a joke, or possibly as a political statement. In either case, it does not appear to be in the spirit of the encyclopedia, and I have rolled back these edits.
In the process of rolling back the edits, I removed a {{prod}} template. The editor who added the prod did not include a 'concern' parameter, and the edit summary read, "try this method of deletion". If, as I suspect, the decision to delete was prompted by the joke edits, I think rollback was a better solution. If editors still feel that this current stub should be deleted (there are no third-party sources or clear indication of notability), then the page can still be deleted via articles for deletion discussion. Cnilep (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trying to assist {{24.181.176.79}}, who added {{Delete My Page}} and "I wish to have this page removed." to the article. I didn't look far enough back in the history to realize that this had once been a serious article. I apologize for my oversight. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
