Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Jamal Read

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 speedied. Although not entirely clear from the article (partly because of a pagemove), this is an article about a real person, who is a high-school teacher. It was obviously created by students at the school, principally by one who has edited nothing else. It is not clear whether the students intended to mock and harass their teacher or to affectionately poke fun at him as part of some sort of local joking, but this BLP content obviously cannot remain. The decline of a speedy nomination occurred at a much earlier and less problematic stage of the article, so I do not feel I am wheel-warring by deleting it now, particularly since the information in the first edit that might have created an arguable hook for notability is blatantly false. It is dismaying that this article was overlooked in our internal patrolling and had to be brought to our attention offsite by a bitter critic of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Brian Jamal Read

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

BLP vio and/or hoax. CSD declined by Jclemens. Neither book cited in the article are in worldcat. none of the titles listed under "Publications" are in worldcat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Born 1848, degree in wizardry, professor at Cambridge University, dormant for 100 years. The author of this isn't even trying to pass it off as genuine. The only thing I can believe is that the subject might be on the staff of Plymouth-Canton Educational Park. AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Why is it not under CSD? 'Wizardry' is simply ridiculous. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:42, 18 March 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.