Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Robert Strachan


 * 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 delete. Dakota 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Robert Strachan
Obvious hoax to me, however, it is elaborate enough not to fit in the speedy criteria. To put things more specifically however, it looks like Original research and not Verifiable for the parts which are about the person Robert Strachan, and the parts which are about real historical figures can be accommodated on their own page. Ans e ll 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant hoax. Most of the article is copied from Lord Nelson's article. The bit about his being honored by Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square is kind of a dead giveaway. Fan-1967 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Avakynesian Guys, this isn't a hoax; I mean, I live in Scotland, and unfortunately it's true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppish (talk • contribs) (User:Avakynesian has not edited this page.)

I have copied lots from Lord Nelson, but that's because him and lord strachan are related. You see, there are some referances from nelson to Strachan and also, this is my first article. I have a few citations if someone wants some! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.47.31.7 (talk • contribs).

Give me a citation, Oppish. Then I will believe you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avakynesian (talk • contribs). 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We are concerned that you cannot prove it is not a hoax. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza| Anse ll ]] 04:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Scotland, and I have herad an awful lot about this guy. . . Ansell, just wait while I go check this citation out at BBC.com!


 * See. i told you its no hoax! besides, why would i pollute wikipedia with rubbush, just for fun? like i said, it's my first article. im sorry if i copied stuff, i mean, i needed something to look off of! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppish (talk • contribs)


 * Copying the content was not a violation, however, it is unnecessary to do it the way you did. If you could remove all content not related to the subject of the page it would make this easier. Ans e ll  04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * Comment Stop using the unsigned tag. Information.svg Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you.. -- Fan-1967 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes; it is true. This citation from BBC Checked out. Oppish, perhaps could you clean this article up a bit. . . or maybe alot! I mean, suppose if it get's deleted, you could fix it up by rearranging those blunt plagirisms? And perhaps fixing it soon? Avakynesian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.47.31.7 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment You blew it. You forgot to log back in, so your IP address was visible when you posted as Oppish above, and then posted as Avakynesian. We know there's only one of you. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Fan-1967 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. I disagree that this doesn't deserve speedy; this is patent nonsense. VoiceOfReason 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I give in, it fits because it is not truly intelligible. The individual facts dont gel together, and hence it does indeed fit under the speedy criteria. Sorry for wasting peoples time! Ans e ll  04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, you were acting in good faith and doing what you thought was right. It's definitely better to err on the side of not speedily deleting an article if there's any question about it. No waste of time involved :) VoiceOfReason 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. There's nothing to argue about here.  This equates to vandalism.  Among numerous problems, this clearly does not pass WP:V.  Interesting that someone who is currently 15yrs 4mths old supposedly received the pretigious OBE "at age sixteen".  Total garbage. CindyLooWho 05:03, 23 August 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.