- 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Progesterex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous AFD from early Wikipedia was kept based on WP:GOOGLEHITS. No reliable sources cover this hoax. Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. Most of this article is original research scrubbed from blogs and the hoax itself. Jontesta (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Snopes page[1] probably counts towards something, there's also a number of book hits.[2][3][4] I'm leaning towards this being a notable hoax. Artw (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With it being in Hansard[5] pushing it over the line for me. Artw (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Borderline. The article is using weak sources (tabloids, etc.). The drug (hoax) is mentioned in academic sources, but mostly non-English. WP:SIGCOV is a problem; the only English academic source to mention this, [6], has a sentence in passing. The Polish article I checked [7] is a false positive (includes a question about this drug in a survey of students knowledge about drug rape but does not discuss the answer). Book sources look more promising. It has a short entry in The Encyclopedia of High-tech Crime and Crime-fighting by Infobase Publishing. This seems more in depth. (Univ. Press of Mississippi Press). Leaning keep, and arguably tag with ((better sources needed)) or such, so we move from tabloid referencing to academic here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Additional reliable sources can be found at [8] and [9]. Between us we have disproved the nominator's claim that no reliable sources cover this hoax. There are plenty. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would a move to Progesterex hoax be clarifying? Artw (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2022 (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.