Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False document (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False document

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Confused and confusing. Unclear whether it is referring to fiction or reality. The only reference is to a Scottish Gothic academic paper. The examples are all well covered elsewhere, and the general themes are covered in the propaganda, forgery and hoax articles, and epistolary novel for fiction. There’s a long history of debate and confusion on the talk page. It went to AfD in 2012, and doesn’t appear to be any better now. See also false documentation. Blackballnz (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire scope is a WP:SYNTH mess reflecting some editor's opinion that hoaxes, forgeries, epistolary novels, counterfeit currency, and tie-in merchandising material are somehow part of a single coherent overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, per TompaDompa. There are already better articles about hoaxes and forgeries. This is an under sourced fork. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a confusing article with little in the way of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and disambiguate. The topic may be notable, but the execution is mostly unreferenced WP:OR. The sole existing ref is useful and I'll add it to ~~Pseudepigrapha~~, which I think is the relevant topic. But no redirect is needed as the name is very generic (maybe a disambig, however?). PS. I think found manuscript, a term that redirects here, and that was used in the cited source (the single ref the current article has), may be a more relevant concept. I may stub it instead. PPS. I am working on that new article, but as I said above, I don't think a redirect makes sense (but a disambig might). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as per WP:OR. Under sourced and unmanaged referencing. Gauravs 51 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lead claims that this is the found manuscript trope but most of the examples are not really that. Does not cohere as a concept. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (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.