Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Robertson

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James H. Robertson
Student prank/hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's quite legitimate
 * Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Alas, hoax articles are not legitimate here. Perhaps you might try stories.com? Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Say what you like about his deviant sexual practices, I still James H. Robertson is the finest administrator the NSW legislature has ever seen. Jamesss 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- 'JoJo 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
 * Keep 203.129.46.232 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Alexdowner I'll support the NSW greens till i die.
 * KeepKman
 * Keep ShahXerxes Another vote for my man in the Greens.
 * Delete Sockpuppetry Proto 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Habap 15:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete sockpuppet hoax. Google isn't the end-all of notability, of course, but I find it hard to believe that I get more than a hundred hits and all these people get none.  I'm nobody.  --Etacar11 16:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * delete not on Lexis either. Septentrionalis 18:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Fuk you Mobb Deep!!! Biggie fuk you too!!--64.229.218.142 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Puppet limit exceeded. --Xcali 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep Reasons given above- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
 * Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- sounds real enough- 'TagTeam 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
 * Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - sockpuppets galore and more. --FCYTravis 08:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There should be more evidence than "sock puppets". I could accuse you all of being sock puppets too.  What is the burden of proof anyway? Keep- 'Freezer 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
 * Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sjakkalle is the real sockpuppet he keeps deleting notable articles. fuckin' douche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
 * This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pseudo-postmodernist false entry backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax, nonsense, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW douche, u cant vote more than once — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
 * This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If your underused and likely vestigial eyes would care to squint at this page, you will note, Ms. 65.92.123.75, that Sjakkalle has only voted once. jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .