Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Bruce Cunningham


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Bruce Cunningham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article from June 2007 with absolutely zero sources aside from mirrors and the closest thing I found was for a 1950s Arizona pastor here. The author's name suggests a family connection and I'm not sure if this man ever existed (no evidence to suggest he's part of the James Cunningham genealogy) but I'm not anything to suggest keeping. are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister  talk  23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It's unclear whether or not a person with this name existed, but the information in the article appears to be a partial or total hoax. A few examples: All of this points to a quite long-lived hoax, on Wikipedia for more than eight years now. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is virtually unthinkable that the rejection of a knighthood in the 18th century would not have a vast number of references in multiple sources.
 * Absolutely no evidence exists that George III ever compelled the name change of Cunningham to Conyngham in England; to this day, the former spelling is by far the most common.
 * Since the subject is clearly claimed to be a Protestant, the statement "excommunicated by order of the Pope for heresy" makes no sense (such an action could only apply to an individual within the Catholic Church).
 * No supporting evidence whatsoever is found for the coat of arms and supposed Cunningham motto ("No Quarter").
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hoax. No entry in the DNB, which would be unthinkable for someone supposedly so prominent. And lots of dubious rubbish in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of evidence. I note the initial version had "cursed by the Pope" and offer of a knighthood coming from William III. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and all of the above. Even if it's not a hoax, it's so badly written that it might was well be WP:BOLLOCKS. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as fairly obvious hoax (I did search, anyone with a bio like that, in this period, in Scoltland would leave a trail) and am not sure whether to laugh or weep, but certainly, it merits deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- There is an alleged source cited, a 1916 genealogical work, to which I have no access. However, the whole thing wreaks of family anecdotal tradition.  Some of the statements made do not seem historically credible, such as about the English spelling of the surname.  My experience is that traditions handed down orally in families in Britain tend to gain in the telling and are thus historically not reliable.  This does not necessarily apply elsewhere or where there is an intervening written source.  Even if this were right, there is a strong case for saying the subject was NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - fails WP:V and is quite certainly a hoax, wriiten by a really cunning user. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2015 (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.