Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor of Teoco


 * 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 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Igor of Teoco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable historical figure. This article (and various Wikipedia mirrors) appear to be the only mention of this person to be found online. The sole cited reference is an article about Persia in the late 19th century. If it mentions Igor of Teoco at all, it is likely only in passing as he is surely not the topic of the article. (The article is protected by a paywall, so I have been unable to read beyond the abstract.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Igor?? I smell a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as a 99.99999% likely hoax. It's pronounced eye-gor. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No satisfactory evidence this character existed, in history or legend. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the article author has, since this nomination, proceeded to add several meaningless and unrelated references to the article. None of the new references mention "Igor of Teoco".  This appears to be a clear case of reference padding for the sake of making the article look more legitimate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes"174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any reliable references for this. Goblin Face (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (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.