Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mock


 * 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 speedy del After User:PatGallacher in the talk page have made a painstaking and qualified research, and convincingly (and politely) proved it is a hoax, he was covered with insults from the contributor. So I am deleting it with prejudice. It is one thing to make a hoax in good humor, it is totally another to make it in a highly insulting way. (I am leaving the talk:James Mock for reference for some time.) `'mikka (t) 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

James Mock
hoax, non-verifiable PatGallacher 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a hoax, at the very least it's non-verifiable, see the article's talk page for a full discussion. The main reference quoted, "My Search for Celtic's John", does not mention this person, and the article's "defender" has persistently declined to produce any verifiable source to back this article. Some other details are fishy. PatGallacher 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete We can't take chances on hoaxes. A Google search for "James Mock" comes up with several people, none which seem to match the one described in the article.  Also, the downright insulting defence on the talk page ("you pompous, arrogant, douchebag") doesn't sound to me like someone defending a legitimate article.  The same defender later admits: "I cannot guarantee the accuracy of all the content of this article".  Neither can any of us. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax, unless references appear. Mr Stephen 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You guys suck ass and so does wikipedia... and stop calling me a 'defender'... we're not playing D&G at your place jackass. Why should I be able to verify everything in an article I didn't write about a man I never met? What is the purpose of wikipedia supposed to be anyway?(rhetorical) Theolatina 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep omg! There's more than one of you! Darwin got it wrong! This article is not a hoax. You have two of us on the discussion page stating a knowledge of James Mock(as a poet who wrote about John Thompson). I have looked at the policies of wikipedia and found the rather ridiculous policy on non-verifibility. I find it odd that what appears to be an accomplished and researched article can have it's references declared unsatisfactory by ONE POMPOUS, ARROGANT DOUCHEBAG(a classification into which you ALL fall). FYI, referring to someone as such is not a defence of an article, it is an apt description of said LOSER. I feel that the references should be double checked if you want wikipedia to have any credibility. I also suggest that the parish records for births/baptisms in Kirkliston be checked. This would confirm what TWO sources have stated, i.e. that James Mock was indeed a historical figure. I am worried that perhaps the fact that James mock is GAY is what is speeding this witchhunt along. Is Pat Gallacher HOMOPHOBIC and a total loser? I find it interesting that Andrew Lenahan manages to look up google to verify the article, yet Pat only went as far as supposedly checking one book in a library, also, apparently only checking the index and not bothering to read it. I think due to the nature of the material, i.e. that it isn't a well known subject matter, should allow it's continued presence here - sources will be few and much of the man's life and background will be from word of mouth or personal knowledge of him. I also expect that it is verifiable when not looked at by homophobes. Until the references are at least double checked and a more thorough investigation into the content is undertaken then the article should remain. When you all get back from burning books with your fellow nazi luddites you should perhaps consider this... and perhaps also get jobs, lives, girlfriends, laid, etc.
 * Delete Totally unverifiable. Note to Theolatina: Angry tantrums are not a substitute for WP:Verifiable references from WP:Reliable Sources. Those standards for Wikipedia articles are not negotiable. We have an article created by a user who's never contributed anything else, being defended by two other editors who have never contributed anything else. That won't do it, no matter how many insults you throw. Fan-1967 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because I'm a pompous, arrogant douchebag. And because one would think that the works of a poet with such a history and following would actually turn up in a Google search, which they don't. Misses verifiability by a substantial amount. Tony Fox (speak) 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Theolatina, one more insult, and you will be blocked from editing. `'mikka (t) 21:29, 26 July 2006 (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.