Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Hughes (politician)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Hughes (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Likely hoax. The subject never existed. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have been elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate in 2002, but the official election results show no such individual. Senator Hughes was supposed to have sponsored Senate Bill, Act 2005-174 to ban certain religious training colleges; but the real Senate Bill 174 in 2005 was an amendment to the Vehicle Code by Senator Jake Corman. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have filed a suit in Pennsylvania Superior Court #PA-1472-A-07-10-05, but a docket search at Superior Court website reveals no such thing. Gentlemen, we have a well-written hoax on our hands. Blargh29 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Northeastern Theological Seminary, which is a related hoax by the author.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. I think it will fail G3, but somebody could try it.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - details in article are clearly a hoax, given that some can be and have been checked by Blargh29. They do not appear to be based on any particular real person.  Not suitable for G3 - it is not a blatant hoax, but a well-written and apparently plausible one. Warofdreams talk 03:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Totally disproven by Blargh29's excellent research.The paired article about the seminary is also clearly a hoax. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Not suitable for speedy deletion: "only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion". If that was the case here, there would have been no need for research into it. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it looks like a good reason to use WP:IAR because there is no good reason to keep a hoax in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V. Again, this can't be verified by several Internet searches, but may consist of wishful thinking mixed with false claims. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (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.