Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawing off of Manhattan Island

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sawing off of Manhattan Island

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

This article's content is supported by no reliable sources. It all stems from a story that was told 30 years after the event was said to have taken place. See the Snopes article[1] for more information. Gary (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - respectfully, I believe the nominator is looking at this article in the wrong light. Yes, it's a hoax - but a notable meta-hoax. The Snopes entry is a good source from that respect.--~T P W 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 (spam). Seriously, somebody makes up these things and tries to make money off of them? Really, this is a stupid idea! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with TPW; even if it didn't happen (which appears likely), it appears to be marginally notable, has a reliable source, and isn't a half bad article. Buddy431 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennisthe2: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the nomination appears to be serious, despite the date. Buddy431 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...oops. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In nominating this article for deletion, I was not trying to make an April Fool's Day prank. I think that the poor quality of the documentation of this event indicates that it probably never happened. But if other Wikipedians think this is worth preserving on Wikipedia and vote to keep it, I won't take it personally.Gary (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in echo of other commentary. Has enough resource to back it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:30, 1 April 2010 (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.