Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Bleakeley

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• 20:18, Mar 31, 2005 RickK deleted "Fort Bleakeley" (hoax article, vandalized repeatedly, past its time to be deleted)

[edit] Fort Bleakeley

This article looks like a hoax to me. I smell a rat, in any case. The intro paragraph reads: "Fort Bleakeley is an isolated research facility on the west coast of Canada privately owned by Thunderstorm Corporations. It is currently in charge of the three orbiting satellite projects Prometheus, Icarus, and Mercurius. Its location is undisclosed, these projects being secret." "Fort Bleakeley" doesn't Google, nor does "Thunderstorm Corporations". Any Canadians out there who can confirm the existence of this "fort"? If not, then delete. --Plek 12:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as nonsense, before more is added as promised--nixie 14:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and the speedy boilerplate has been added. --Kitch 15:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Why would he want to write up on this if he's trying to keep it secret? Delete, I say, but let's wait a while. I want to see what he'll write next. --Jake 20:32, Mar. 29, 2005 (UTC)

  Comment by 84.154.54.74 (talk · contributions)

• Speedy Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. That's funny. ??? 21:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Last comment by 84.154.85.194 (talk · contributions), most likely the author of the article, who deleted its contents and is now asking to delete it altogether. --Plek 21:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Amazing deductions! Now will you delete it? Please???

  Unsigned comment by 84.154.85.194 (talk · contributions)

• Someone also needs to deal with Prometheus_Project. AdamW 00:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Spinboy 06:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy! Speedy! Speedy! --obmiJ

  One more unsigned comment from 84.154.85.194 Fed up?

  Fine, delete all my articles. You think it's a hoax, then it's a hoax. Prove it.

  I challenge you ALL.

  from 84.154.85.194 Best regards.

  • The onus, dear anon user, isn't on anybody to prove that it is a hoax; it's on you to prove that it isn't. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Bearcat 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, has anyone checked out the Prolino article? It's the same guy who wrote it - it might be another hoax. 84.154.49.63 20:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Point well taken, my dear Bearcat, but the fact remains that we don't have a website and probably will not till Kingdom come. I suggest looking up the sources I listed. Or have one of you stubborn Wikipedians go some 500 miles north of Vancouver Island. Then you can decide if it's a hoax or not. I'm not saying it is. That's why, admins, save us all the trouble and delete this article swiftly. That's one more vote for a speedy. Do us all a favor and end this. Now.

This is (hopefully) the last message from 84.154.85.194. At least you haven't found my other articles. Yet.

P.S. Won't you at least place this discussion or the article on BJAODN? An early April Fools' to y'all. signed 84.154.85.194

• Delete as unverified. And logically, if it is accurate, then it is unverifiable. It's a pity that people keep contributing all this great secret information that we can't use, but, what can you do? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That's right, my friend. And I'll fix it up. In a month or two it'll be all reworded and everything and I'll have found my sources by then. External sources. Delete the darned thing. Now. It's "unverifiable".

from your friendly neighborhood 84.154.85.194. One more day 'till April Fools'! Watch out!

• • Now, now, what's all this about me being a "vandal"? I don't "vandalize" accounts, I just create nice and new ones, worthy of entering Wikipedia. If all these things are hoaxes, then I guess I'm a "hoaxer". But not a vandal. Shame on you, Plek. Calling me a vandal and all.

At least you haven't found my OTHER hoax. Some idiot approved it yesterday. Quantum, if you want a hint. G'day to y'all. This is 84.154.85.194, now signing off. Temporarily. Beware.

• Now that I think of it, Dpbsmith wasn't saying anything at all! A jumble-up of sentences... meaning what? And it logically, if it is inaccurate, then it is verifiable, then, ain't it? --84.154.85.194

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.