Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Vanderburg


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Vanderburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can find no trace of the books: Burnstein, M (1967). "Cyrus Vanderburg: A True Czech Hero" Random House or Vanderburg, C, Vanderburg, E. (1976). "The Way I See It: Letters from Cyrus" New Zion Press. I suspect a hoax. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — Possible hoax; lacking n. m o ɳ o  00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am assume this is not a hoax.  Even with that assumption, this person is just not notable.  Einstein had lots of "friends" and there were lots of Holocaust survivors, thankfully, who started life anew in Isreal.  It is a heartening tale, but hardly notable. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that we always should assume good faith when responding to the opinions voiced by others in the nomination process, including the nomination itself, and we should always be careful before labeling a person as being a purveyor of lies. However, WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when it comes to any statement offered as fact, and there is nothing uncivil about expressing suspicion of dubious contributions to an encyclopedia, so it's OK if you want to say that you're skeptical.  The negative return from the Google search, combined with the fact that this is a contribution from what is called an "SPA" (single purpose account), is enough for me.  Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that a real published book would have no Google hits, much less two different ublished books on the same topic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a bad attempt at a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. I loved the titles for the made-up sources-- A True Czech Hero and The Way I See It.   Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2010 (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.