Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Pocket


 * 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. Enough! kingboyk 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Pocket

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hoax. The name, Thomas Albert Pocket, of this eminent gentleman doesn't show up in various databases, and no record of the references seems to exist in WorldCat. Spacepotato 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite amusing, but qualifies for Speedy Delete as complete nonsense. We don't need an AfD for this, so tagged as such.  Eliminator JR   Talk  00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not a speedy. CSD G1 is for unintelligible material, not false material. Spacepotato 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Nonsense is nonsense, however intelligible it is. I've restored the speedy tags, but if you revert them again I'm not going to try a third time.  This, however, is a waste of an AfD.  Eliminator JR   Talk  00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, I'm reverting. Feel free to read the definition of CSD G1 and patent nonsense. Spacepotato 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:IAR and plenty of precedent on AfD, but fair enough, go with it. I think hoaxes should at least be plausible :) Odd thing is, WP:HOAX defines hoaxes as vandalism...  Eliminator JR  Talk  00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the purpose, I'd suggest keeping it here. The sole proponent seems to think he's valid, so WP:SNOW doesn't work here, but if it stays here and comes up again, we can just G4 it. =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is no reason to delete the valid page of an inventor. Until you have substantive evidence that he never existed, you have no grounds for deletion. Angosc989 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC) — angosc989 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * On the contrary, there are many grounds for deletion. A google search ("Sir Thomas Pocket") turns up nothing, another ("Thomas Pocket") turns up something about pocket watches on its first result, and yet another ("+Thomas Pocket" +inventor) turns up nothing relevant to anyone named Thomas Pocket, let alone a member of the OBE.  Further, the books don't seem to exist in any library.  This tells me that there are no reliable sources, and his existence cannot be verified.  Finally, to make the statement that you require evidence that he didn't exist to delete is a straw man argument.  Until you can provide evidence he existed, then no, I for one will not change my vote (below). --Dennisthe2 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. You shoulder the burden of proof, not the community.  Unless you can prove the subject exists, and that he meets WP:ATT, the article should be deleted. Resolute 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a hoax.  The books in the references didn't exist, as near as I can tell. --Dennisthe2 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patent hoax. Nardman1 00:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per pocket, this word is a corruption of the Old French word for pouch, not named after some mythical inventor. Nardman1 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An obvious hoax.  It is pretty funny, though. SkipSmith 04:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Resolute 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious hoax ArchStanton 07:36, 15 March 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.