Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanlee Kelly


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stanlee Kelly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Replaced a speedy as a hoax. Unreferenced article on a minor historical pirate. Article creator is their namesake. This might well be a pure hoax, but we should allow sufficient time for those with the refs to check through them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A obvious hoax. No mention in any reference to hand, nothing in google books, nada in google searches but wikipedia and a mirror .  And the name of the editor is an obvious give away User:Stank58, Stanlee Kelly get it shortened to Stank?  Something smells and this was an obvious speedy candidate.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you, although I would note two things. Firstly gHits just aren't reliable, especially not for proving non-existence on older topics. Secondly this isn't an obvious hoax, as that relies on proving a negative. If there's a standard encyclopedia of piracy (Jane's? Wisden? Bradshaw's) and they're not listed there, then that would be a strong indication. Is there such a recognised authority? Has anyone checked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From google books No results found for "Stanlee Kelly". Google hits are damn reliable when its an obvious hoax, google books invariably turns up fairly obscure and arcane information. I won't post the normal google search as it turns up the guy's facebook page and its a minor.  You made a bad call removing the CSD notice.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it might have been a bad call. It was a deliberate choice to risk annoying an established editor (who would hopefully understand some of the issues involved), just to avoid WP:BITEing yet another newbie. Either way, someone's nose is going to be out of joint.
 * Apart from relying on Google, are you able to check any other piratical references? It's not my field, but are there any well-established refs on the subject where we'd expect all notable pirates to appear? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No I didn't rely solely on google, I checked the book on Morgan I had to hand (hint - look at my comments that I highlighted in bold and my edit summary). See where you can get your own copy and check for yourself.  This is well known as a primary source.  Tell me, what stopped you asking on my talk page first?  I don't use speedy lightly where there is any appreciable leeway or doubt.  I'm not annoyed, just irritated that we're wasting time on discussing what is obviously a hoax.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - If we were to accept that this is not a hoax, then this article still fails verifiability in spectacular fashion having absolutely no sources that can be found at all. Not even unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (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.