Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

Meloidogyne

Meloidogyne gajuscus and Meloidogyne fruglia were deleted as hoaxes today. I'm unable to find out when they were created, but they stayed for pretty long. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

02:46, 23 June 2007 and 02:45, 23 June 2007, respectively. Both by Somanypeople EvergreenFir (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

They are both in top 10 for longevity, then. Though it was mentioned that the creation might have been in good faith, but stemming from two vandal-made list entries. Geschichte (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat more long-running than Pratylenchus dulscus. Should they be added, or not added and in that case should Pratylenchus dulscus also be removed? Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense to add them, since their origin is due to a hoax, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The Swiss Family Robinson Arabic translation

@Loriendrew: There is a book with this name: [1] [2]. Classifying it as a film was just a mistake made when article was reorganized. MSMST1543 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, and much better description than not a hoax.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dutchmonkey9000 whose diff was linked. I concur this was likely an error than a hoax (intentional attempt to introduce falsehood). Just like many other 'hoaxes' reported here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Fretïmio Assocão di Planka

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fretïmio Assocão di Planka was created around 2015/16 (though can't find an exact date) so a lifespan of around 8 years. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Kornigou

Kornigou has been around since 2004 and appears to be a hoax, as I can't find any sources that aren't derived from Wikipedia. The cited sources are a personal blog and a couple of books that, at least according to GBooks, do not contain the word "Kornigou" at all. All GBooks hits are likewise well after the existence of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article was previously kept in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kornigou. Malerisch (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Madarpur

Battle of Madarpur was created in October 2014, currently at PROD. Doesn't seem to exist, as the only cited source doesn't mention it at all, and I can't find any sources before 2014 that mention it -- just Wikipedia mirrors and the like. @Piotrus: what say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer Single GBooks hit of dubious reliability ([3]). Madarpur redirects to Munger district, but this term is not even mentioned there (RfD?). Our infobox gives location as Kanpur, not Madarpur. Cited reference, as the link shows, is not for Madarpur but for kanyakubja (redirects to Kannauj). Creator is a WP:SPA Golanducal (talk · contribs). The article has a longer list of references (badly formatted) at one point [4], mostly half legible/gibberish (ex. "Swami sahajanand rachanavali" - what is this? Does not google). There was one EL to [5], which is still live, and which does mention the word Madarpur (in machine translation). Overall, I'd classify this as Type 3 (Possible hoax but with room for doubt) or (given the online source using this term) as Type 4 (False or unreferenced and dubious statement that may or may not be a hoax as it could arguably have been added as a mistake or in good faith) - this could be a bad translation / transliteration of something from Hindu or some other Indian language. It is a badly written, confusing article, too poorly sourced to meet our policies, but I would not call it an outright hoax for the reasons given above - it is just so badly written it is one of those cases it is hard to dinstinguish a hoax (invented story) from a badly written mess. We can add it to the list here as Type 3, why not - we already have many Type 3 and such entries here already, people call a lot of stuff hoaxes even if it is not necessarily one, and list it here (and I do think a list of Wikipedia errors is a good to have, just don't call them hoaxes, folks - most are not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Was rumpology a hoax?

I am leaning no, but if folks care: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumpology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film)

This 17-year old article is about to be deleted as a hoax: El castillo de los monstruos (1964 film) (see talk page for discussion). Created as a redirect 7 March 2007, as an article 30 June 2009. Fram (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From the discussion it seems to be some kind of a database error or unintentional confusion rather than a hoax. Gawaon (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

More like an IMDb hoax which got copied to here. Fram (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Amberlihisar fortress in Turkey, other AI-generated articles in 404 Media article

https://www.404media.co/email/d516cf7f-3b5f-4bf4-93da-325d9522dd79/?ref=daily-stories-newsletter

Seems like the hoaxes mentioned in the article should be on the list. Seananony (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. How can this not be on the list:

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Amberlihisar? Seananony (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This list is incomplete and you are likely to update it, but keep in mind not all errors are hoaxes. Also, you did not link to any discussion that explains why this is a hoax. @Scott who may offer more insight. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Heya! It was speedy deleted as G3 (blatant hoax) by GeneralNotability without any discussion that I saw. I honestly don't know why it's been described as "AI-generated", by the way (hence its appearance in that article which is doing the rounds on social media at the moment). Is the idea here that a hoaxer would be too lazy to write all that and make up the references? Because after seeing plenty of detailed and well-structured hoaxes over the years, I would never make that assumption.  — Scott • talk 12:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Scott I added Amberlihisar. Hopefully I did it right. Seananony (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)