Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloysius Spotiswoode


 * 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. Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aloysius Spotiswoode

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find no reliable and independent evidence confirming that this person ever existed. During its short existence here on Wikipedia, the article became a target of really strange editing, see for example this. I asked the article's creator for explanation, but I received no answer. I'm sorry to say that, but I suspect a hoax. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hoax Had he really founded a magazine, and if he were known for his theory, I would expect to find some evidence of their existence, eg in the British Library index or Google. As for the man himself, a Google search takes you to some very strange places. He fails the notability test anyway - he does not even get to the starting gate for WP:ACADEMIC if nobody has heard of him. --AJHingston (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. No evidence of the book he is supposed to have written: for example, not in Cambridge University Library catalogue.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Childish hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete - hoax. --Anthem 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. No hits on both Yahoo and Google to even suggest that this is a notable person. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No surprise. He's not even a real person! Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC).
 * I think this article is a more sophisticated attempt of to deceive Wikipedia. His previous creations on not notable high school students were deleted. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Closing admin should consider a site ban on the creator (after giving him the opportunity to respond). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC).
 * We seem to have an astonishingly high tolerance for authors of completely fake articles. However I don't think it's within the remit of an admin to ban an editor on his own motion, although I would support an indefinite block with the implicit offer of a return if the editor in question accepts they were wrong and agrees not to do it again.  That is, assuming that this is, as I think, a complete fake.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. Although the article preposterous it is technically proficient. If the creator could be persuaded to turn away from the dark side and follow the straight and narrow path he might have the makings of a useful editor. On the other hand he seems to be a multiple offender. Perhaps a threat that further offences will meet with condign punishment will suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Blocking policy is that blocks "should not be intended as a punishment". Multiple offenders should be blocked "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia".  If they use the opportunity to reflect on and change their ways, fine.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another fair comment, Sergeant. But there would be a case to prevent disruption. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2011 (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.