Before I address the question, I want to address the way that you asked it.
When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.
Such tactics are highly disruptive to the project. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages.
Note that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it.
We are not Wikipedia, but the arguments supporting that policy apply equally here. Please do not pose fake questions. We don't think we have a strict policy on this, but we will get one if it proves to be a problem.
In the meantime, I saw the question was not posed in good faith and had no chance of being rescued into a good question, and so I deleted it outright.
- On the other hand, we do have strict policies against "sock puppeting".
Do not create fake accounts. It is a quick way to have all of your accounts suspended.
- Your "glow" example is a poor one.
I understand you don't believe it. I understand that. I've always assumed it is a white lie people say to tired women with body-image issues to make them feel better about themselves. [I am willing to acknowledge I may be missing something that others can see; empirical evidence that people can pick recently pregnant women from photos/videos of their face, at a better than chance level, would cinch it for me.]
But that we don't believe it is very different to saying an insignificant number of people believe it. It is not hard to find people who do believe it, or are on the fence
- Your Rhianna example is an outdated one.
It was asked in April 2011, when the site had barely entered Beta. We hadn't established any of the key policies that now define the site. (As a general rule, I treat any question before June 2011 as being from a different culture.)
This also-outdated, also-over-literal-interpretation question was very controversial at the time, and helped promote some of those new rules.
Which brings me to the question: The ultimate test is "Do many people believe the claim?" As that is hard to measure, we use a proxy of whether the claim is "notable" - if many people have heard it or repeated it, it is likely that many people will believe it (or even better, be interested in the evidence before they believe it).
If the question relies on reading the claim very literally, we need to ask whether people believing the claim are also interpreting it literally.
It is sometimes a tough call. It is made more difficult by the fact that many skeptics (and I don't exclude myself) are rather literally-minded.
(It is one of the reasons I dislike questions that ask us to test Biblical passages literally. They quickly gets bogged into arguments about how the passages should be interpreted.)