Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splitting of Moon Hoax - Rima Ariadaeus

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. There is consensus that this page does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am choosing to delete rather than redirect as this title doesn't seem like a very plausible search term. If anyone would like the article to be copied to their userspace, just ask me on my talk page and I will do it for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of Moon Hoax - Rima Ariadaeus

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

Wikipedia is not snopes.com. We do not need an article for every yahoo chain email that comes through, and this meme does not appear to have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thanks I was wondering if this article can be merged with a larger article about religious hoaxes. This is basically divulging hoaxes towards propoganda. I feel the hoaxes are present on the internet and Wikipedia is the source which most people trust. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Splitting of the moon which already mentions this. I don't think it's sufficiently important/notable to merit its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret, because I find this article rather interesting (just as the articles on snopes.com are interesting), but unfortunately "interesting" is not an inclusion criterion for Wikipedia. The title would be a rather implausible redirect since we already have the main article. We have Category:Religious hoaxes, which could possibly be tagged to the splitting of the moon article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gene93k, better copy this page to your userspace before its too late. --TheChampionMan1234 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "too late". If it's deleted first, any admin can restore it to anyone's user space. I'm willing to do it if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colapeninsula. Some of the sources are really ridiculous. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Details:

I have seen that references from Jarfariya News Network have been used as credible references for multiple Islam related articles.
Moreover I have posted television clips that prove this was indeed circulated by Mass Media to the public. Hence I differ that the article is poor in terms of referencing.
This article involves the website of an eminent person holding a high office - Mr. Zaghloul Najjar.
Redirect would mean too much corruption to the Splitting of the moon article. Although the content is arguable.
I have added more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page about religion related hoaxes. I think that it should be removed and the contents moved to the Category: Religious Hoaxes. Kindly inform me of what is happening. It seems I have created a duplicate page.
My Main Referemces

http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k8_news/march/22moon_crack.htm - Used as a credible source in many places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA52owyeSsU - Zaghloul El Najjar on Al Jazeera
http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/main.php?id=31 - About Zaghloul El Najjar

--Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 18 September 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.