Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Peninsula War

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. If anyone wants to preserve this somewhere specific, let me know and I'll make the content available to you if you need it. W.marsh 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Preserved at User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. PrimeHunter 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

The article's topic seems to be non-existent. When typed in to Google, there were no definitely relevant results. Also, Epaphroditus Ransom was not hanged, as mentioned in the article, and died 18 years later that it said he did, calling into question the existence of the article's topic. Also, no Enabling Act was passed in 1843, according to my research on this. This seems to be quite an elaborately constructed hoax. If anybody can give definite proof that such an event occured, I will withdraw my nomination. queso man 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a hoax. Sophisticated perhaps, but a hoax. FrozenPurpleCube 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WTF. There was no boundary dispute between Britain and the US surrounding the Michigan-Upper Canada border in 1843. The boundary survey began, certainly, and there was a dispute over the land which is now the southern half of British Columbia (about 3,000 km or so west of this area), but I see no reference to a "Canada-Michigan War". Then there's this excitement:

“

This 7, 356 square mile piece land, an area half the size of Denmark, would lead to the first hot war between Canadian and American forces since the War of 1812.

”

This is indeed surprising, because our article on Canada–United States relations mentions that the last "hot war" was the War of 1812, and doesn't mention a thing about this "war". Other interesting discrepancies include:

Epaphroditus Ransom is said to have been executed for treason a full 18 years before he actually died (of natural causes in Kansas);
One of the battles was supposedly called the "Rudyard Massacre" at the time, which is interesting because the town of Rudyard was only named that in 1890, 47 years after the massacre was supposedly named so;
I have two of the books listed under References, and neither reference this boundary dispute between the US and Canada. Hoax. (Edited.) --Charlene 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but archive ~~somewhere~~ at WP:BJAODN. It would be a shame to lose such an artfully crafted example of a hoax article. -Amatulic 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to archive it like that? This would be an excellent example of a hoax, and, as you said, it would be a shame to lose it completely. --queso man 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- hoax article Thunderwing 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Another point is that the article has E. Ransom as Michigan's governor during this supposed 1843–1844 war. Ransom actually served as governor from 1848 to 1850. Deor 21:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:BJAODN Hoax. DarkAudit 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded! I edited my comment above accordingly. -Amatulic 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thirded! This doesn't quite seem as funny as some of the other articles I've seen sent or sent myself down there, but this is a very interesting hoax. --queso man 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I'm not sure that it's funny at all. There seems to be some militia guys with guns here (click on "The 164th Anniversary of Epaphroditus Ransom's Capture"; WP rejects attempts to provide a direct link) who take some of this nonsense seriously, or at least pretend to, and use it to justify their strange ideas. Deor 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN! as a masterful hoax. --Haemo 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and BJAODN. Kudos to the author, but please don't do this anymore. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN for sure. I can't believe somebody had the balls to construct such an elaborate hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, this is a must. One of the most sophisticated articles I've ever seen. --Swing65 20:42, 10 May 2007
BJAODN as much as I hate to reward a vandal, this is the most elaborate hoax I've ever seen here. I almost admire the author for trying to pull this off.--Isotope23 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and preserve at BJAODN or elsewhere -- not to reward a vandal, but as an example of just how thoroughgoing a hoax article can be. -- Shunpiker 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. 132.205.44.134 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete please maybe for uncyclopedia but not very good a hoax yuckfoo 00:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, a masterpiece hoax. GregorB 22:18, 14 May 2007 (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.