Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Chesney

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 Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wyatt Chesney

Possible hoax, or non-notable, vanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete even if not a hoax as nn/vanity/attempt to get free webspace for campaign. NawlinWiki 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Has lots of ghits, but very few satisfy "significant press coverage" (of WP:BIO). Seems a bit vain, in nature, but really any article on a candidate of whom not enough to be able to provide multiple sides, and complete coverage, would seem vain. -Seidenstud 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a campaign press release. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete According to http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=42064.0 , a forum user admitted that he had perpetrated the hoax. It's embarassing to people such as me who had supported the campaign. -ABAsite
• Delete Per the Atlas entry, and Captain Vlad's personal assurance, this is a hoax. Phone records support this. --Trafton 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as admitted hoax. --DarkAudit 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. - DNewhall
• Speedy Delete as admitted hoax, or turn into an article covering the hoax (it may have fooled enough people to be notable ...). Georgewilliamherbert 09:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A quick question. This raises an interesting point. Does the number of blogs fooled and the public nature of this event justify leaving an article in its place describing the hoax itself? --Trafton 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We could move the article to Wyatt Chesney (hoax) and describe the dispute, but that would violate WP:NOR. Once a reliable source describes the hoax we could create the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- This kind of thing should not be encouraged by rewarding it with attention. An article about such hoaxes and how they are perpetuated would be interesting KarenAnn 13:43, 8 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.