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.
Kurykh (
talk) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
While the existence of this hoax is clearly established, and it had some ephemeral reportage, it has no durable notability.
jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kurykh (
talk) 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the rationale of the nominator and the event does not appear to have established sufficient notability.
-- HighKing++ 15:43, 5 March 2017 (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.