Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Peters

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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Peters

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Hansnesse an anon user as nn-bio, but he doesn't think it should be speedied himself. Copying comments from talk page below. howcheng {chat} 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Henry Peters: I have not researched the guy to check verifiability I should think 17th century explorers, who discovered major finds, etc. are notable. If this is to be deleted, it should be via AfD process I should think. I'm checking verifiability to ensure not a hoax, but definitely not speedy material. --Hansnesse 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Increasingly, this article is looking suspicious. The Temple of Castor and Pollux seems to be in Rome, not Sicily. Moreover, it seems strange that an explorer would "discover" it so late in history. I could find no reference to "Henry Peters" in any database I checked. I withdraw my objection to deletion, although suggest it would be better as an AfD, in case I missed something. I will add a hoax tag as well. --Hansnesse 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I did not tag for speedy deletion. That was done by the anon ip 82.54.167.161 (contribs), see this edit. I was investigating the article when it was tagged for speedy and wanted to figure out what was going on before deletion. I put on the hangon tag and think this is the appropriate place. I am open to further investigation revealing this guy is real, but I don't see it. --Hansnesse 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:86.128.100.73 (contribs) just posted a reference to "The Concise Dictionary of 16th Century Archaeologists (1852)." This book is not mentioned in OLCL (a worldwide catalogue of books), the US Library of Congress, Google or Google Scholar, Historical Abstracts (a subscription service), or Oxford University Library. It is impossible to rule out that this book exists, of course, but if this is the only source for verifiability, I think it is safe to say it is unverifiable. Particularly since the book (if it is indeed the source) got the location of the Temple of Castor and Pollux wrong, it would seem to be unreliable. --Hansnesse 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone produces strong evidence it is not a hoax. Merchbow 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Un sourced, and very unlikely to be anything other than a hoax or WP:NFT. Obina 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (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.