Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Day

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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Day

Hoax. No Google hits. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Google doesn't know everything - check the archives at John's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.165 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC
• Delete Google indeed doesn't know everything... but unless this can be verified, I see to reason to keep this probably hoax. The way it's written, it's either an attempt at a joke or this guy had a ungodly bizarre life. Note that the author is adding several articles like this today... he really needs to cite an (online or offline) source, otherwise this stuff is unverifiable. --W.marsh 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Even it is wasn't, I don't see where it meets WP:BIO. PJM 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per PJM Swegner 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Jonhinius"? Give us a break. — Haeleth Talk 22:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not too sure, wait on sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.165 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Genuine, he is a cult figure in Canonbury. A little statue of him can be found to this day by the waterfall on Jodpurs Way. Sadly it is a reconstruction, the original was destroyed by a bomb in WW2, although legend has it that the statue dived in the bomb's path in order to save young girl from certain obliteration. Hope this helps, Ethel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.245 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC

Thank you... but no...it doesn't really help. PJM 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

¤Deletion of this entry would be near heresy: records show that fractions of Jonhinius's skull were treated as relics, and traded among Franciscan monks during the latter phases of the seventeenth century. Gillian Sitch, Canonbury Archeological Foundation, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.148.39 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for that information, Ms Sitch. Oddly, I can't find the Canonbury Archeological Foundation in the phone book, nor any presence for it online - even with the misspelling of the name corrected. Perhaps you could leave details of how to join on my talk page? I'd be very interested. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There might be a mention of this guy (If his name's "Johannes" and not "Jonhinius"; the latter is farcical) in the SJC Library records; most biographical details unverifiable. It'd need to be severely reduced to justify keeping it TheBasis Talk14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep? If it is Johannes, this guy sounds pretty interesting, even without all the rubbish about cats and stuff. 'thebasis' any more info on your guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finn_McCool (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞

indeed it is, sorry didn't know how to put my sig in. now I do. hello everyone. (129.67.61.197 17:55, 17 November 2005 (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.