Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mailer Diablo 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohit

Tagged as "patent nonsense" by another editor two times, but that has been contested. Ezeu 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It has not been any of the editors of this article that have edited Charles I. We have tirelessly worked on this article for a whole day. If you think it's a hoax, CHECK THE REFERENCES. Mohit DOES appear in there, and not in a minimal role either. We don't much appreciate users who say delete without any reason, AKA Tintin and Coredesat. If you honestly believe that this article is a hoax, which it is not, please state some conflicting evidence instead of saying "delete as a hoax". Every single word in that article is true, and we should be receiving praise about writing such a detailed account of an important sage's life instead of being vilified for it.
Thank you, and I hope you see the light of your errors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythonriot (talk • contribs)
  • Don't you realize that every single edit on Wikipedia is recorded and clearly visible? You created this article. You added the garbage to Charles I. You came here and lied about it. Thank you. You've exposed yourself. If anyone had any remaining doubt that this is a total fabrication and outright hoax, you have made everything crystal clear. There cannot be any doubt at all, now. Fan-1967 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, didn't remember that, it was my first contribution and I was playing around at school, I'd only just learned of Mohit when we were studying ancient India in World History, and we looked him up on Wikipedia for a paper but he wasn't there, leading to the creation of this article. I was pretty ticked at his absence from this site, so I edited some nonsense, but the content of this article remains true, as you can see from the absence of Charles I anywhere. And the information on the Bantu tribe is true as well, some moderator keeps deleting it, however.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pythonriot (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 July 2006.
Your edit to the Bantu article is evidence that you are a hoaxer.--Ezeu 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Clearly it is not patent nonsense. It may be a hoax, but that would need to be judged by those with knowledge of relevant history. This material was added to the article on Pope Silvester I by an anon on January 5 and has apparently been unchallenged there since that time. However, this edit to Charles I of England, by the author of this article, does appear to be absolute garbage, which would support the claim that the whole thing is a hoax. Google is unhelpful, as Mohit is a common given name. Fan-1967 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Delete There is no person named Mohit from the 4th century. This is a big hoax.--Babub→Talk 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hoax is not a speedy criterion. Fan-1967 14:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? What stuff is in which reference? This material is extremely suspect since its authors have inserted absolutely undisputable garbage about Mohit into other articles like Charles I, cited above, and Bantu. Fan-1967 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The first reference has a bit more, like Mohit's meeting with Pope Silvester, but they overlap a lot. They both mention Beast and Man, but the second also has more about his science of love. The first also talks more about his early life, as opposed to just birth location and time period. --§m¡lª¢k 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Did either source describe how Mohit converted England to Hinduism after the death of Charles I in 1649? Fan-1967 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepUndisputable garbage? We live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. So, too is it conceivable that a man should be accepted as existing unless proven contrariwise. It is far easier to prove a man exists than to prove the opposite. Herein lies considerable evidence that the man in question did in fact exist, and held deeply considered beliefs in his respective fields of philosophy. Perhaps he is obscure, but consider the following: Gravity is only a theory. It is a set of beliefs which seem to hold true in all circumstances. We believe we know how it functions, but we cannot claim to know why. We cannot see or comprehend it, but only witness its influences. So too can we witness Mohit's influences in the references aforementioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.90.27 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2006
  • This is not a country, and the criminal burden of proof does not apply to Wikipedia articles. Every fact must be backed by reputable sources, and the burden lies with the editor making a claim to prove it. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having spent some time trying to validate this article, I am convinced that this is either a hoax or that it refers to an extremely obscure person. The sourced references may be bonafide, but not everyone mentioned in a publication is notable. Delete unless someone besides the creators of this article can ensure that this is not an obscure non-notable person or a hoax. Comments by the above editor regarding gravity and that "perhaps he is obscure" strengthens my conviction.--Ezeu 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why does everyone try so hard? --Chronicidal 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No verification from reliable sources. Fan-1967 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why aren't those sources reliable? --§m¡lª¢k 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Because they amount to a handful of people saying "I saw it in a book." Given the stupendous number of websites that devote huge amounts of space to every religious or philosophical teacher that ever lived, it is inconceivable that not one even mentions this guy. Possibility 1: he's the only religious teacher in history to never be mentioned on the web. Possibility 2: The whole thing is a hoax. Add in the fact that the author of the article is a proven and admitted liar, and the conclusion is inescapable. Fan-1967 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete since it is, at present, impossible to separate fact from fiction. I don't believe a word written by Pythonriot, not least because the references to Mohit in the articles to which this makes reference were in several cases added by Pythonriod - it defies belief that long-standing articles would have missed such a figure had it been attested in the sources. Also, the article claims as fact the baptism of Constantine by Silvester I, which is generally accepted to be fiction. The supposed book cover is a blatant bit of Photoshopping. Unless a genuine authority can come in and essentially start again I think we're better off without this strange mix of (maybe) fact and fiction. Just zis Guy you know? 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Cronoyuha (talk · contribs), Trivialord (talk · contribs), Ben2ben90 (talk · contribs) are now indef-blocked for hoax vandalism. Any other involved socks should be notified at my Talk or WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now: it is always better to have missing articles than misleading articles. It could always be undeleted later if someone widely trusted manages to look up the rather obscure references and discovers that this isn't a hoax, though I have to say I consider it unlikely. — Haeleth Talk 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have nothing to add that hasn't been said... either a hoax or unverifiable, take your pick. --Kinu t/c 03:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources the dubious. GizzaChat © 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, or rather move to BJAODN. Sanskrit mohita means "bewildered, deluded". enough said :) dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
BJAODNing this would be BEANS. --Ezeu 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to BJAODN. Any hoax which could stand unheeded despite elaboration for months and even when it breaks the bounds of credibility to remain unquestioned for nearly a week shows sufficient guile and subterfuge to be placed in this hallowed hall of dubious dupes.
  • Delete content, but please create Wiktionary entry per Dbachmann. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--D-Boy 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax HomeTOWNboy 20:21, 31 July 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.