Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th Duke of Cleveland hoax


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

5th Duke of Cleveland hoax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no permanent interest. Just a curiosity. NOT NEWS, NOT TABLOID. significant BLP problems  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, a minor curiosity as nom says, ideal for tabloids, social media and gossip sites but not for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This falls under not news. I also think the article is way to detailed, and makes too many mentions of Wikipedia. This might have a place in a broad scholarly article on the uses and misuses of Wikipedia, but there is just not enough here to justify an article on the incident itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is essentially the recreated article of one that was twice deleted in 2005 after discussions at Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV and Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland. While the focus appears to be different it's really the same garbage. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fame-seeking imposter, petty criminal lacks significant claim to notability, lacks sufficient sourcing to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with all comments above. MartinJones (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:40, 23 April 2017 (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.