Deletion of Baldock Beer Disaster

Comment: As is often said, '''AfD is not a vote'''. See for example  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:VOTE)

Comment: Google on "Baldock Beer Disaster" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Baldock+Beer+Disaster%22&btnG=Search says "about 353" results, but clicking through them stops after 31 results, where Google says "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 31 already displayed" (probably more mirrored content). Repeating the search including omitted results stops after 80 hits. I see Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia with no editor, forums, blogs. I haven't found a single |reliable source. A lot of false information is removed from Wikipedia every day. We should not keep the information except rare cases where multiple reliable sources have written about it. And if we don't have a reliable source saying it was a hoax, then it would violate our own policies to claim it's a hoax. Creating or keeping articles about non-notable hoaxes or other nonsense will just encourage more people to add them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Hoax with falsified sources, and no sources to indicate it's a notable hoax. Everything staying for a while in Wikipedia is mirrored at many unedited sites. The current http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Baldock_Beer_Disaster%22_Hoax&oldid=140031524 rewrite by Mandsford to describe the hoax is largely |original research and partially false. For example, the article was questionned http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%22Baldock_Beer_Disaster%22_Hoax&diff=next&oldid=29850989 on the talk page in 2005. General discussions about Wikipedia belong in articles about Wikipedia, for example Reliability of Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia. If a reliable source discussing this story can be found then it might be mentioned in another article. It would take a lot to get its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: We cannot keep this hoax just because its been on here for a long time or because other sites have mirrored it. There is the '''integrity''' of Wikipedia as an '''encyclopaedia''' to be considered and allowing things like that to stay damages that integrity and reputation, leaving us open to further attacks of a similar nature. I say '''delete''' quickly before more harm is done. Alternatively, send it to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Silly Things (WP:BJAODN)

Comment: Per , ''hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years.'' This one does not appear notable, because (except for the mirror sites) there is no reliable evidence that anyone in the external world was fooled, except for a few mentions on small web sites. (See the findings of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)