Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Anderson
- 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, hoax. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bradley Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Prod disputed without explanation by article author. This is a hoax if I ever saw one. For as famous as this guy's illness supposedly was, googling for "bradley anderson" "chief ambassador" turns up absolutely nothing. "bradley anderson" "ambassador" does turn up an article of ours, but that only lists an Australian ambassador (not even chief) who was born in 1949, and that name was recently added by an anon and the spelling changed a little bit later by the same person who wrote this article. "bradley anderson" by itself turns up lots of results (common name), but nothing at all about an ambassador. (Also nominating Maria James, a redirect page to this one, created about the guy's supposed "wife". I can find nothing to support that either.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Nardman1 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete This is a definate hoax. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and take Sports Trainer with it, since it's pretty plain that User:Bradles 01 and User:Jane 01 are one and the same, from the edit patterns. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, Google shows nothing. John Reaves (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete A definite hoax. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, this one is a hoax, but the name is a common one. There are ghits for the name = here. I would have no prejudice against re-creating it, as long as it's about a notable, verifiable one that is reliably sourced.
Anyone here agree with this suggestion?? There may well be another Bradley Anderson who is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but this one is not the person. --sunstar nettalk 12:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.