This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 April 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Miacek's argument that "The lack of sources is not a good argument in case of some online phenomena" is incompatible with the core policy WP:V, which applies to all subjects. Sandstein 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
An original research with close to none about a deleted weird wikipedia version in a " Siberian language", which was, as his creator eventually confessed, together with the "language" itself, one huge hoax, which duped wikimedia gurus for two years despite vocal protests of Russophone wikicommunity againts this abomination. (A fun to read this wikidrama, BTW, two years later: it is amazing how a single dedicated person, with a little help from a couple Russophobes can shrink heads of many supposedly smart people.) There is nothing to write about this project. The reliable sorces are close to none. The previous nomination was ended as "kept" due to concerted efforts of the " Eastern European mailing list", who gave no real arguments whatsoever. The only extra refs found by Colchicum during the previous nom were a couple or articles on regional Russian websites by journalists also duped by Zolotaryov. In summary , this article deserves to be kept only of someone writes a newspaper article "Wikihoax of the Century". - Altenmann >t 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply