Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal society of human rights investigators


 * 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 Delete as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Royal society of human rights investigators

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fairly certain that this is a hoax. Couldn't find any references. Chris 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, total hoax, no hits at all on Google. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No Google hits so it sounds like either a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation, a hoax, or else something made up one day. Iain99 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost certainly a hoax, and no evidence of notability. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any queries concerning the RSHRI should be directed to Mr. James Scott Francis of 21 Oaktree Road, Croydon North, Victoria, 3136, Australia, or by email: james.s.francis@optusnet.com.au. The RSHRI registered URL is: www.rshri.com.au. Existing server facilities are currently being reconfigured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Scott Francis (talk • contribs)
 * But to be included in Wikipedia it has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject (eg newspapers). Can you point to any? Iain99 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the domain registrar, rshri.com.au is currently not registered. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since James Scott Francis is also the creator of the article &amp;c, we may be sure now be sure that this article is either a hoax or a product of delusion. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are severe verifiability problems with the article given that no sources are provided and seem to be difficult to find. I doubt that the queen has given her imprimatur to the organisation if it exists. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a monarchist order that simultaneous wants to establish the Queen as the highest authority in the UK and Australia, AND also wants to abolish nation states in favor of a "liberal democratic global parliamentary system based upon the Westminster system of governance.  Hard to believe its serious.DGG (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete Speedy delete. No such organisation is listed as having been granted a Royal Charter, a legal requirement to be able to use "Royal" in the title. Dbromage 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to speedy and nominated the article for speedy. No such organisation can be confirmed to exist. I also removed some blatant copyright violations from the talk page, which James Scott Francis appears to be using as a soapbox. Dbromage  [Talk]   00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's spam anyway. The Evil Spartan 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. It is not clear where it claims to be incorporated, but in Britain, it would need some licence to use the word Royal, without which the word cannot be part of a company name.  Its principles are also mistaken.  The Queen is not a dictator.  Consitutional lawyers will explain tha the sovereign power in Britain lies in the Queen In Parliament.  Peterkingiron 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It needs a Royal Charter to use the word Royal in the title. Dbromage  [Talk]   00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps the points need to be explicitly made (1) that this constraint applies where HRH is head-of-state, and (2) that this organization claims to have a .au domain (id est, where HRH is indeed head-of-state). Elsewhere (as in the United States), anyone could use the word “royal” to entitle pretty much anything. —The Royal SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think you mean Her Majesty, who is indeed the Queen of Australia too. You'd think an organisation that "acknowledges that the Queen’s excellent Majesty ... is the highest power" would follow the rules about using the word "Royal". Anyway, rshri.com.au is currently not registered. Dbromage  [Talk]   00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate the correction, as I don't want to go to the Tower as a result of a protocol failure when I am knighted. In any case, as I said earlier, the fact that the domain isn't (or at least wasn't) even registered is part of what demonstrates that this article represents hoax or delusion. —The Right Honorable SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete established that this is a hoax. Hut 8.5 11:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since the article's creator has now been blocked for vandalism of said article, is there any need to keep this discussion going?  Dbromage  [Talk]   03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I see some value in Dbromage keeping me from making a greater fool of myself, but I suppose that's not sufficient. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - why are we still debating this? Aren't there any admins willing to ignore all rules for the good of the encyclopedia? The Evil Spartan 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a likely hoax, the article creator has been banned and even if this were not a hoax the verifiability issues are so severe that it should be deleted anyhow. Burntsauce 17:42, 9 August 2007 (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.