Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa Foundation

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa Foundation

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find sources for this foundation that would amount to WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Till 03:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's covered by Snopes as an urban legend. It also shows up here but that doesn't constitute significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no coverage of this anywhere except for Snopes and other sites that wouldn't show notability. This could probably be deleted under G3.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an urban legend. Wikipedia has many articles on urban legends (see Category:Urban legends). So the question is, does this particular urban legend have enough coverage in reliable sources to merit a page in Wikipedia? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It doesn't have the significant coverage needed. The only reliable coverage I can find is the Snopes coverage and the book/article that I listed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can second Whpq's assertion that there's no coverage. The most I found about this that even smacked of being remotely reliable was a news site that reposted the chain letter word for word without verifying anything in the letter or even commenting on it. Even then it wasn't exactly the type of site that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. There's just nothing out there to show that this hoax was ultimately notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does anyone know if Snopes.com is considered to be a reliable source? As far as reporting on urban legends, it may the premier site. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has a couple of discussions which are a bit inconclusive: Archive 25, and Archive 127. My own inclination would be that they are in as much as there is editorial control over the content and transparency in the research. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2012 (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.