Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Dees

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:57Z

[edit] Timothy Dees

Timothy Dees (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm 99% positive this page is a hoax, but someone obviously put a lot of effort into it. I tried putting a 'prod' on the article; a new user User:Dodgers7878 (who I suspect is a sockpuppet of the author) immediately showed up on my talk page to try to rescue the article. When I didn't buy what he had to say, he immediately deleted the 'prod' and 'hoax' tags. The only sources for the article are a journal that Google doesn't know about and a couple of blog posts that anyone could have written - not suitable per WP:RS; and Google has never heard of a cricket player named Timothy Dees that died of spontaneous human combustion. Request speedy delete if I can get concurrence. RJASE1 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) RJASE1 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the author(s) should probably be punished for perpetrating the hoax - kind of a shame, though, they put so much work into this. :) RJASE1 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete full of original research and likely hoax, but be lenient to the authors, give them a second chance. Wooyi 05:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Blog sources are hardly reliable... .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am likewise 99% convinced this is a hoax. That other 1%, however, makes this ineligable for Speedy Delete. Shaundakulbara 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Shouldn't we keep this until we either have a Timothy Dees to put up, or it has been proven wrong. I mean does anybody have anything to counter his 'sources'? Whubbard 01:03, 5 February 2007 (EST)
  • Comment Yes, we do: Policy. Resolute 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a national team coach dying of spontaneous human combustion would have made the legitimate news. I'll stake my claim to the last remaining 1% that this is a hoax. Resolute 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Check out this interesting attempt to source the article from Wikipedia itself. This edit was made after this article was nominated - we're going to have this kind of disruption until the article is deleted. RJASE1 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 2 of 3 references to a newly-established blog. The blog contains 3 articles - the 2 referenced plus one about how great the Faroe Islands economy is doing - partly due to "demand for smoked salmon". Trouble is, there has been no commercial harvest of salmon in the Faroes for 5 years [1]. Unable to find anything on Dees or the supposed economic expert quoted in the economy blog article using google. Unable to find anything on blog owner "Midalson" using google. Seems like blog created to provide referential support for this likely hoax article. Further, no google hits on "Jens Norbinson" the alleged author of the first reference. --TRosenbaum 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear hoax. created and edited by single purpose accounts - presumably all the same person, and solely referenced to an unimportant blog - Peripitus (Talk) 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoaxes with hoax references are particularly distasteful. You'd think that a successful cricket coach and former player would show up in this search, but you'd be wrong. And that journal article? Not here, here, here, or even here. And this one is short enough to read through, too. The only thing that's not a hoax is that this is why blogs aren't reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Resolute. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's pretty plain all edits to the account (except for stub tagging, etc.) are coming from the Nashville, Tennessee area and are likely the same person. The details can be found at the sockpuppetry case here. By the way, the article is evidence for the sockpuppetry case and probably shouldn't be deleted until that case gets processed (though the backlog over there is horrendous). RJASE1 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The "death announcement" blog article referenced (3) quotes 3 individuals: "Dr. Haan Djorkwald", "Bjorn Baverwold", and "Jens Munichwold". Is it a coincidence that all three names end with "wold" or ("wald") and that one is a "Djork" (dork?)? No google hits on any of the "wo(a)lds". I think the blog is as much a hoax as this article. --TRosenbaum 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Got me. Thanks for being so polite and thorough. Winkers6767 15:18, 6 February (CST)
• Comment Probably we should archive it as a classic hoax on wikipedia in WP:BAD to admonish future like-minded editors. Wooyi 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• CommentWinkers6767, you disgust me. Have you no respect for truth? You pervert all that is good and holy. Shame on you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.73.164 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Please follow WP:CIVIL and do not give personal attacks. Wooyi 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for defending me, Wooyi; the Faroese people thank you. I would be honored if Timothy Dees had a place in WP:BAD. Winkers6767 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not defending you personally, but I was only discussing concerns that is in accordance with wikipedia rules. Also I would not consider being put into WP:BAD as an honor and this type of hoax should not be encouraged. I sincerely hope you, Winkers6767 would instead use your talent to make constructive edits to wikipedia and be a responsible editor. Wooyi 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize. I just get really wound up at such wickedness. I suppose we're all capable of such things. I should have taken into account total depravity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
• Comment. Giving hoaxers recognition by perpetuating their hoaxes as examples only encourages more hoaxing - don't give recognition. Oh, and since the primary author (Winkers6767) requested deletion above, the article can now be speedily deleted per WP:CSD, criterion 7. RJASE1 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Punch in the Face RJASE1, you were clearly the hall monitor in high school and never got over it. You can speedily delete yourself. Yes, Wooyi, I know you weren't defending me. I was just trying to be nice. Jerk. Oh, and that was a personal attack. Winkers6767 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The failure to report the cricket scores correctly gives it away if the rest of it didn't!! Howzthat?--Slp1 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.