Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BenVanWissen


 * 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 deleted as bad redirect to valid article Benjamin Drake Van Wissen

BenVanWissen
I believe this to be fictitious; also the name of the article is incorrect Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC). Note the change to guano as well - I can't find any reference to this man or his statue - note that the first edit for this page was obviously a wind-up - I suspect this is a hoax article. Stephenb (Talk) 14:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC). Hmm, user has now created Benjamin Drake Van Wissen as well - I will talk... Stephenb (Talk) 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This information was partly from an Australian book entitled "Oceanic Trade Agreements". I can scan in the relevant page and pictures to upload to Wikipedia if needed. Also, as he was a relation of mine on my mothers side part of the information is from anecdotal sources. The second page was created as the first one was obviously graffitied by another sibling, which when I found out about was corrected. As well as being the incorrect title. 138.217.36.23 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, more believable, but I will leave this VfD here for others to judge, I think. Given that there is now an article with the "correct" name, this particular article should still probably be deleted. Stephenb (Talk) 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, the first article is fine for deletion. I was quite offended seeing my late relatives lifelong work firstly misrepresented and now not being worthy for remembrance.138.217.36.23 14:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In order to expand/verify this article, I have sent a request for information to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the U.S. Embassy in Suva/Fiji, as follows - BonsaiViking 14:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am an American citizen in the United States writing on behalf of the community at en.wikipedia.org, and am looking for information to expand our online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. A user has recently posted an article which touches on the history of Nauru. The article is about Benjamin Drake Van Wissen, and can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BenVanWissen
 * As a volunteer-based and completely open organisation, we at Wikipedia must try hard to maintain the accuracy and truthfulness of the articles in our encyclopedia. In attempting to verify the information of the BenVanWissen article, we were unable to find mention of this person anywhere else. It is our hope that you could help us verify or deny the authenticity of the information in the article. Any information or suggestions for further inquiry would be appreciated.
 * Thank you,
 * BonsaiViking
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BonsaiViking


 * Well, I got a response from the Embassy, but not specific enough to make a change. They directed me to the Consular Information Sheet, but also gave contact information for the Nauru Consulate General in Melbourne, Australia. I'm not in a position to be making phone calls Down Under, but if there's an Aussie Wikipedian who'd like to give them a call at telephone (613) 9653-5709, they might have more information. BonsaiViking 15:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave them a call at 12:30pm AEDST on Novemember 9, 2005 (I live in Melbourne, Australia). They were rather terse, I don't think this is the sort of information they exist to provide, but they were able to confirm that the statue of Van Wissen is in place on the island. I was, however, unable to confirm the other information in the article. The article does seem more plausible now. A cursory search for Nauru's exports does show that their economy runs mainly on the harvesting of phosphates, and that it waas devastated by this industry. Also, phosphates such as this were mined unjustly (if not illegally) by Australians in Nauru, as evidenced by the 1993 court case. 02:00, 9 November 2005 (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.