Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rhyde Rhodes

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. DS (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Rhyde Rhodes

I'm going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "Richard Rhyde Rhodes" or "Richard Rhodes" that has any of the traits claimed by this article (there is plenty on this notable Richard Rhodes, but it is not the same person as this article). If he was on the Forbes 400 in 1992, for example, that should come up very quickly with a Google search, but I cannot seem to find anything on that, or anything else in this article, hence it seems to fail WP:V. If someone can provide sources, I would probably withdraw the nomination because he does seem to have at least some claim to notability (if he is indeed real). Cheers, CP 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX. Mr. Rhodes doesn't seem to come up in any of the numerous potted histories of Intel. Additionally, the creator's sole other (surviving?) edit is an unsourced and subsequently reverted addition to Henry B. Steagall. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a hoax. No ghits. STORMTRACKER 94 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No Google sources except this article. Joshdboz (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax per discussion above, and per WP:BLP because it consists solely of unreferenced material on a possibly living person. WP:V is policy, not a guideline, and it is quite clear that it is up to an editor who adds material to provide the sources to justify its inclusion.
  As an aside, I regret the tendency at AfD to treat that requirement as if it were inverted, requiring other editors to spend a lot of time trying to second-guess the editor who created the article. The edit box for a new article says in bold print "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted"; it does not say "don't worry about referencing article, because other editors will devote huge amounts of time to trying to assess whether there were some sources you could have used or whether this is just something you made up".</rant> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (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.