Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Giddenson

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Giddenson
Appears to be patent nonsense associated with Grande Trilogie of Epick Workes - no google hits, first article by editor. - Bantman 06:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Alan Au 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I'm tempted just to tag it as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to BJAODN as a first article, it's utterly fanciful nonsense and hope to see equally well constructed real articles from the editor in future, meanwhile I've reverted 1315 and 1280. Alf 12:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This particular article was created by User:Hamonicamusings and subsequently edited by User:205.197.148.2, I have encouraged 'them' to comment here. Alf 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a careful hoax. The author (205.197.148.2) should be blocked as the worst kind of vandal: a non-obvious one. --Tysto 15:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

yeah, this is hamonicamusings. I agree with Alf's suggestion, and put it up on the BJAODN. Even though it's a hoax, it was a pretty well thought out one...you have to give me that, at least. I am thinking though that it could use some historical references. No matter. I also thing that Tysto needs to lighten up a bit. But yeah, delete it or Move it to BJAODN. Probably the best place for it anyway. Hamonicamusings 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Tysto; this is an example of the insidious vandalism that poses the greatest threat to WP. It was undetected for about 12 hours, and even touched up by other editors; I only caught it because I was watching 1280 and sensed that the article didn't look right.  It could have stayed up for a long time without detection as a glaring example of WP's shortcomings. - Bantman 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Awesome hoax. Wish it was true. -HX
 * Delete hoax. -- Etacar11   03:53, 24 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.