Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Nicholson
- 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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly a hoax. The references appear to be bogus. See the attempts on the talk page to establish the existence of the references with scanned and doctored images. Quite funny actually. Nesbit 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only google hits for ["Nicholas Nicholson" Ovingham] which appear to refer to the subject are from WP mirror sites. The three authors given in the reference section produce no other google hits. Nesbit 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after reading everything on the talk page, it looks pretty hoaxy. History isn't poorly represented on Google, either. AdamBiswanger1 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a hoax. The three books mentioned in the article aren't in the Northumberland library system online catalog, nor are they in WorldCat. The images on the talk page don't increase the credibility of the article, either. Spacepotato 02:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This is pure nonsense. Plus, User:Ivan1989 has announced his intent to remove the AfD notice on the talk page. Danny Lilithborne 02:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a reference to removing the proposed deletion notice (which was a legitimate action on the part of User:Ivan1989), not the AfD notice. Spacepotato 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I laugh and I laugh, but no, sir, I don't buy it. Therefore, I delete. Well, want to, anyway. -- Captain Disdain 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. The article claims that its 14th-century English subject mentioned a sequoia on his death -- a New World tree named after an 18th century Native American. NawlinWiki 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definite hoax with some brave defence on the talk page which is quite funny. The silly references are a complete giveaway. OAP boba 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment* Now Frank-123 has admitted he faked the scanned book cover as he couldn't find the real book. I would suggest that this is because the real book doesn't exist! - see the article's talk page. OAP boba 20:21, 21 June 2006 (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.