Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 18:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Probable hoax, couldn't find a single reliable source about this book. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: it was added to Template:Aldous Huxley in 2008 (!) by User:Tjmayerinsf. Fram (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete : Probably not a hoax, as some passing mentions do crop up on searches. But the lack of available sources; even if the book really exists; makes it non notable. I came across this, but it might be a case of WP:CIRCULAR.-- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  13:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The link you cited is circular sourcing as you suspected, that entire page is copied from Science, Liberty and Peace, and the mention of this article on that page is copied from Template:Aldous Huxley. 109.76.199.245 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think its a hoax, the Open University have it in their bibliography, but clearly not notable, all I can find are mentions in lists. I assume if it was of any merit or interest it would have been reprinted.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not in the British Library, National Library of Scotland, or Library of Congress. I'm not convinced it exists; certainly fails notability requirements for books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm a little skeptical about its existence. It's not notable outside of the author, that's for certain, but what concerns me is that we don't really have a lot of truly hard evidence of its existence. The problem is that a lot of places, and I mean a LOT of places will pull bibliographies straight from Wikipedia. I believe that Open University is one of the places that does take some material from Wikipedia, and I know other places that will just cut/paste the Wikipedia article as a whole onto their website. This is why we'd need more than just a bibliography list before I'm entirely certain that this isn't just another hoax that has assumed legitimacy because sources report on it... because they saw this article and figured they should update their materials. It's a little telling that there's no mention of this anywhere in any biographies of Huxley, not even in passing. You'd think that at least some author somewhere would mention that Huxley wrote a second children's novel, especially if it's in such limited supply. Since the article asserts that there is one copy in a school in Germany, I'm going to contact the school to see if a copy actually exists. I'd recommend leaving this open for a little while longer, so I can post whether or not the book actually exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I heard back from the school. They have no record of having a book by that name. This leads me to believe that this is actually a hoax, as the school would have some sort of knowledge of the book in question. I think that this is just a case of someone trying to use Wikipedia to perpetuate a hoax, which isn't anything new to us. I recommend that we remove the article and the mention of the book from the Huxley article as a whole. The only places that seem to list this book or mention it at all are places that seem to have clearly pulled from Wikipedia itself. Delete as a hoax. It's just very, very telling that there's absolutely nothing out there about this book in any format other than it being included in a basic bibliography list, especially given the vast, vast majority of sources out there that cover the author himself. This is pretty clearly a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   02:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Implausible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment: We should probably list this at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, especially since it did bleed into some other sources that drew from the Wikipedia articles. This is pretty much the epitome of why schools say that WP shouldn't be used as a source in and of itself. I hate that they say that, but this is kind of the reason why they have to say it in the first place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and no source or useful article content, irrespective of whether it's a hoax. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2014 (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.