On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion discussion for the person who knows where to look for the obscure source to confirm something, to turn up (a week in the case of AfD). This applies more to articles where people are guessing something must be a hoax (and not finding anything confirming it is true), rather than articles where a reliable sources confirms it is a hoax. Essentially, absence of proof of being a hoax is not the same as presence of proof that it is a hoax, and if you only have the former, you need the time for people to find sources that may exist. Search for Uncle G and swiss cheese if you want more on this. Carcharoth

I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do. If contrary evidence shows up it's easy enough to rewrite or resurrect, whereas presence of an article in Wikipedia may have a disproportionate effect on how the hoax fares. On 9/11/09, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:

Sure there are articles that can be discussed for five days or so (is it really seven now?) The administrators' noticeboard should not be involved, and those who go there with evidence to support a non-hoax should be firmly pointed at the admin's talk page or, if the admin disputes the evidence, deletion review.