Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Roberts (businessman)


 * 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 all. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Roberts (businessman)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a more elaborate hoax than most - credit to HagenUK for spotting it and doing most of the research to demolish it. A quite pretty but markedly uninformative website has been set up for "Roberts Investments Group", which doesn't give an address or even a telephone number. There are also even less informative web-sites for "Chateau Le Mont", the "Howard Art Gallery" of New York, and something called "Call for Change". None of these gives a telephone number - all invite contact by email only.

When we try to make any independent checks, we get nowhere. Andrew Roberts is claimed to be #184 on the Sunday Times rich list, but a search for "Roberts" doesn't find him. The links provided to Time and Forbes don't take you to any mention of him. A search of the London telephone directory does not find the Group. A Google search for "Roberts Investments Group" finds a couple of others - a real estate broker in Norcross, GA and another in Cedar Hill, TX whose CEO is Tim Roberts - plus some blog-type mentions, but no independent reliable source.

The sole author has some earlier contributions, but has worked on nothing but this since May. I can't imagine why anyone would go to all this trouble, but the failure of the rich-list check and the absence of any independent confirmation leave me quite clear - it's a hoax. For what it's worth, an article called "Stefan Roberts" was deleted in 2005 as "self-admitted hoax". Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all - appears to be an elaborate hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Not verifiable (WP:V and self published sources). blue  520  23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm having problems verifying as well. I'm 99.9% sure at this point that the nominator's right and that it's a hoax.  On the off chance it's actually not, at some point we'll get a reliable source and can recreate the article.  In the mean time, having a false article is far more damaging to WP than the the .1% chance that it's actually true. Vickser (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all 3 per the above, with a tip of the hat to User:JohnCD and user:HagenUK for sorting them all out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Author has removed AfD prod and hoax tags from all 3 articles. JuJube (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All as hoax. Also recommend Salt as they may be an investment hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And especially since it appears that two of the articles have been deleted four times before, see:
 * Articles for deletion/Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts
 * Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts
 * Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre
 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all 3 and salt. Complying with the policy of identifying oneself as involved, I am the contributor who spotted the hoax and did the research. Many thanks to JohnCD (talk) to bring this to AFD. The Wikipedia AFD is a bit daunting ;-) HagenUK (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that some information in these articles is unverifiable. I see how it is therefore wrong to keep these articles in place.  I would, therefore, move for deletion as a point of making sure everything on Wikipedia is as correct as possible, to comply with WP:V.  It is all correct (except for the Sunday Times stuff, which I am in the process of investigating as I type) but I can't prove it, so I move for deletion. Fuzzybuddy (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two comments: If you want a laugh, take a look at this page from the Roberts Investments Group web-site, about a day in the life of a typical employee. The main features seem to be that RIG pays for his Starbucks, and that by shaving 15 minutes off his lunch hour he gets to go home at 5:15. If only I had known life in a hedge fund was so relaxed...


 * Looking at the previous AfDs listed above, it occurs to me that it's a sign of the times that the Roberts family fantasies have moved on from being old-style Debrett aristocracy to being new-style hedge-fund-billionaire aristocracy. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This must be your lucky day, JohnCD (talk)!!! Roberts Investments Group has a vacancy for a Research Market Analyst. You can even apply online! Wish my global financial company would pay that much ... let along the free Starbucks coffee ;-) HagenUK (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Curses! Too late! The page before that says "applications welcome until 30th June" JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. If you want to work for Andrew Roberts (businessman) you can always get a job at Howards Art Gallery or Chateu Le Mont ;-) HagenUK (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another comment - if anyone doubts that the Roberts family would go to the trouble of setting up fake web-sites to back their claims, it's apparent from this conversation that last year they prepared a fake version of the London Gazette site to back up the claim that Andrew had been created Earl Roberts and Stefan was Viscount St Pierre. Unfortunately the link no longer works - they evidently didn't keep up the payments to the web host. user:mduparte said she was "private secretary to the Earl Roberts", but hasn't been heard from since. I wonder what they will think of next - I can hardly wait. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase “I don’t know what their problem is, but is must be hard to pronounce” comes to mind. I think I will patrol Roberts-related entries a lot in future. Maybe he/they do not get the difference between creating a one-off-joke (which can be funny) and being a ongoing nuisance =8-HagenUK (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (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.