Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Glaister

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. Davewild 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict Glaister

Benedict Glaister (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The whole article is based on paper sources which can not be verified: neither the paper sources titles nor the article subject can be fetched through Google. Cross-references in other articles have been added by the author. The general terminology sounds more like an hoax than like facts. Raistlin (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like a hoax, but even if everything were true, he would still fail WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the hoax .. no hits in Google (except wiki mirrors) and nothing in books. DJ Creamity (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Best hoax I've seen so far. The books don't even turn up on the British Library catalogue; the article, far from asserting notability, asserts "his exploits remain unknown or unpublished"! --Paularblaster (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the latter was exactly my point in proposing a speedy, but let's do it as a full-optionals AfD... --Raistlin (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the books do come up in the british libary cat. i understand that you are trying to protect wiki, but in doing this i think you are losing alot of valued articles. this is not a hoax and i would read more into it. thankyou Lady234 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, one of the papers is listed in my university library. It would seem to be cartographical information though, so I don't think it will be much help here. I have my doubts about the veracity of the information. That being said, we cannot delete something because it does not use web sources, quite the opposite. Finding the books used referenced though, is proving troublesome. To be honest, I think deletion is a better course of action at the moment. Woodym555 20:39, 1 December 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.