Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers


 * 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 keep per WP:SK point 3. There is clear consensus that the nomination bears no resemblance to the content of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a hoax. Craig Jones wears women's underwear. Etc... (Heroeswithmetaphors)  talk  03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there something I'm missing here? The vast majority of the article is taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannia, which generally does not deal in hoaxes. While the article's notability could perhaps be disputed, a hoax it is not. I would ordinarily just vote (possibly speedy) keep, but the rationale is so irreconcilable with the article (and just bizarre) that I fear I've made a mistake. Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make that a speedy keep under speedy-keep criterion 3. It sounds like I'm not the only one perplexed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No coherent argument for deletion has been offered. However, it is a major black eye to have an article that is copied word-for-word from our competitor, with only the last (oddly placed) sentence being "original" content. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep unless the nominator can clearly explain why this is a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep As per, the majority of the content here exactly reflects what is in the original 1911 Britannica source. I don't see any reason to believe that the subject is not as this article (or the 1911 Britannica article) states. The subject otherwise clearly meets WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. (While I do not see any such content, if there was content about the subject "wearing women's underwear", then it could easily be removed. We don't fix vandalism or content problems by deleting titles.) If there is any confusion or error here, then it seem to be the nominator's.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2021 (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.