Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Paquette


 * 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 of the debate was (just putting tags on - wasn't closed properly) enochlau (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Paquette
Hoax. Not a valid speedy, and in no way fulfills Speedy Deletion criterion 4. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hoax. Technically not a speedy, but an early deletion after a day or two wouldn't be amiss. Geogre 04:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as verifiable hoax by repeated hoaxer. Mikkalai 04:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a candidate for speeding deletion. Restoring. Will be removed after a few days on VfD, but process must be followed. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Histories of the pages in question clearly show malicious intent of contributor, and it is easily classified as vandalism. Unfortunately it is not listed as reason for vfd. Mikkalai 05:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, this will be the last time as we have now placed it on VfD and this subpage is here. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If a hoax isn't a valid speedy, then the speedy deletion criteria should be revised. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why a hoax is not patent nonsense. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because as individuals, we have a very poor track record at identifying hoaxes.  Speedy deletes (including those using the "patent nonsense" clause) should be non-controversial.  Too many articles have been nominated as "an obvious hoax" and turned out to be real (though obscure) topics.  Articles accused of being hoaxes should get more than one set of eyes.  (By the way, that is not a defense of this article.  It's merely an attempt to answer anthony's question.)  Rossami (talk)
 * So, basically, hoaxes are patent nonsense, just not suspected hoaxes. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The party responsible for this idiocy not only wasted the time of we who use this site for legitimate purposes, it nearly caused a rift between another user and myself.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 20:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Delete: Almost certainly a vanity page. Anon is unwilling/unable to provide supporting valid references showing the person is notable. Anon has been repeatedly trying to insert an entry for this person on the 1989 page too. *** Ponder 01:34, 2004 Dec 5 (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.