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 Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3 (vandalism). I've blocked the editor as well until they provide a commitment to not create further hoaxes.. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it seems that the editor is a sock puppet of someone already blocked for sock puppetry. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Akureyri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Suspected hoax. All the references, and the article's content, are WP:BALLS. What to do about the creator, who has confessed to creating "in-jokes" on Wikipedia before? Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In-jokes? Regardless of whether or not this article is factual, it doesn't seem to be an 'in-joke' of any sort. Clearly not WP:DAFT fodder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.201.125 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why has the article, which is seemingly drivel, been created then, if it's not some joke? Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure, but i can safely say it's not WP:DAFT fodder, which is what the creator owned up to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.201.125 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the article important? Possibly. Is it BS? Possibly. Notify the creator of the page that this discussion is underway so they can comment and give their inspiration for creating this page. I will assume good faith and state that the creator possibly does not know how to point out an invalid source. There have likely been cases in which the creator of an article used a source that was a hoax and they themselves were fooled. Finalius (Say what?) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My feeling is, that this is not the case of someone being fooled. For example, the sentence "The battle lasted less than an hour, yet left 17 British soldiers dead" is sourced to this website which merely shows that there are 17 Commonwealth war graves at Akureyri. If it was just the case of someone writing an article based on a hoax blog entry, then I'd be willing to believe they were not at fault. In this case, however, the blog source is "backed up" by other sources, none of which actually mention any battle at all. There are also whole sections without any sources at all. Manxruler (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is it just me, or am I overlooking something in the sources in the article? There's (a) A history of Akuyeri that makes no mention of a battle; (b) an history of the war in Iceland that makes no mention of Akuyeri; (c) absoluteastronomy.com (d) some blogs and (e) a picture of 17 gravestones of persons who didn't necessarily die in a battle fought there? If someone can provide a reliable and verifiable source that says that there was a battle fought in Iceland at Akuyeri during World War II, then I'll vote keep, but it's kind of odd that the article can't cite to a book or news item. Considering everything that's been written about the Second World War in the past 70 years, there should be no need to rely on ww2trivia.blogspot.com for a source. Mandsford 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To sum up my view of the article, and why I believe it's a concious hoax: The article contains loads of detailed "information" which does not come from the blog entry, or any other source, which leads me to the conclusion that it is not just the case of someone writing an article sourced on a hoax blog. Manxruler (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely hoax, fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Edison (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The figure of 17 British deaths seems to come from the fact that there are 17 graves in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery at Akureyri, but a search on the [1] website gives their date of death and none correspond. For the sake of doubt I have also checked the much larger cemetery at Reykjavik where there I could find only one relevant death, a captain who died on 18 May, and that does not match this story. Lastly, any incident at Akureyri would belong in the Operation Fork article. 62.49.68.239 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. If this had actually happened it wouldn't be so obscure that nobody's heard of it. (Cue the "cover-up" allegations now!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 29 January 2011 (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.