Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Higgins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 04:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Higgins

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep 'JoJo 13:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
  • keep Jamesss 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Only VFD contribs again same ones as other sock puppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Matthewleung87 14:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • All VFD contributions, only. Same as those tended by other sockpuppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - sockpuppets Proto 14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kman
  • Delete, hoax. Alphax τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Habap 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, an obvious hoax. Columbia 15:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity/hoax + sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote this article, the one on Robertson, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In other words, the Wikipedia is critically flawed. That fact is obvious, but this article still has to go ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, never doubt the J man 'Hotpants 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
    • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sockpuppetry again essentially admitting it's a hoax. --FCYTravis 09:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer' Oh, there... well, delete 'Freezer 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Delete - admitted rubbish backed by sockpuppets and pseudo-postmodernist rhetoric- Skysmith 10:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think SkySmith is sounding like "the other"- 'TagTeam 10:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

  • I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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.