By the end of the article it had crossed my mind that Boyter and Ducker (the perpetrators of the hoax) were themselves fictitious characters, and that the article itself was part of a larger hoax.
If you read the deletion log, it was deleted simply because he's not notable enough yet. There may also be an element of retribution, because the deletion log also mentions the hoax.
it seems to suck that the page is deleted out-right. I would rather that the page altered to reveal that it was all a hoax, but still describe the ficticious person, and perhaps also describe how the hoax was perpetrated. Those tidbits are rather interesting, and would be a shame to have all been lost in the next few decades.
It's interesting to note that Wikipedia does this for other pages that were "based on real facts" or were hoaxes. The one that comes to mind right away is Blair Witch.
The movie's official website featured fake police reports and "newsreel-style" interviews. These augmented the movie's found footage style to spark debates across the internet over whether the movie was a real-life documentary or a work of fiction.[30]
Apparently when its their OX getting gored its not ok.
Articles about hoaxes need to meet same notability standards as other Wikipedia articles. If other newspapers write widely about the Gadyukin article and it becomes a famous example, then an article about it will presumably be created.
> A message by Wikipedia system administrator Brion Vibber from January 2007 warned that deleted revisions could theoretically be cleared without warning at any time, and a script exists to perform this function. However in practice they have only been cleared twice, both times due to technical issues – once on 3 December 2003, because the Wikipedia database was transferred to a new server, and once on 8 June 2004 due to a database crash.
This is, of course, different from the revision history for an article, which shows each edit and is available for public inspection, e.g., ...
How do we know if that is true? I'd trust the article's diffing history, though. But that is gone - just as the text of the article is nowhere to be found.
"Following the controversy of Where the Tractor’s Roam, Gadyukin’s arrival in London was received with great expectations. His first production in the UK was Waiting… in 1956, a project born out of a desire to film Samuel Beckett’s stage play “Waiting for Godot”. Beckett however, was unhappy with the textual changes Gadyukin proposed and withheld permission for an adaptation. Gadyukin’s film is a testament to his ability to tread a fine line, being very close to Beckett’s play in places but always with sufficient alterations to avoid a lawsuit. Waiting… was both experimental in narrative and formal terms, much of the dialogue being a mix of English and Esperanto. Despite a warm reception from European festivals Waiting... met with mixed reviews from the British press and did little business."
It doesn't sound wrong, actually. It's a surname produced from the Russian word for "viper" (гадюка), which would make it unusual due to negative connotations, but not incorrect.
