Deletion of Mars hoax

Comment: I actually remember this one.  But on to way we should keep.  I believe it generated enough new coverage from extremely reliable – verifiable –creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Mars+hoax%22+email&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.  I’ll add some inline cites over the weekend.  That qualifies for our criteria of otability|Notabilty and inclusion.  In addition, with a little research, I am sure there are more than just a few news broadcasts that covered this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per multiple independent instances of press coverage establishing  and meeting .  (references: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/07jul_marshoax.htm NASA, http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/3523496.html Sky and Telescope Magazine, http://space.about.com/b/2007/07/24/mars-hoax-back-again.htm space.about.com, http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/04/bransons_mars_h.html Information Week).  I added each of these as external links.  They still need to be properly cited and integrated into the article, but they provide a strong keep argument.  &hArr
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)