Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Larmouth

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 Deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Tonywalton. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Greg Larmouth

Greg Larmouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. Part of the article (such as the bit about an OBE and private box at St. James' Park) almost seem hoaxy, but this definitely isn't a CSD job. Like I said, I can't find any reliable sources. Loads of self-published stuff on google but nothing else. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. It reads like an autobiography, to me, and I've deleted all the bits that were hoaxy/trying to be funny (though the article's creator has restored them). That doens't leave a lot left: he's a local radio presenter for 2hrs a week. I looked for sources but found nothing reliable, so he fails WP:GNG and, more specifically, WP:ENT. Dricherby (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the creator's user page is be a copy of the article so it looks very much like an autobiography. Dricherby (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The OBE issue was admittedly foolish, however it was merely an error on my part. I was given the information from the person in question, who has since been in touch to say that the OBE was only meant as a joke. As you rightly state, philanthropy in Palestine isn't an issue likely to bring about such an award. However, I am assured that the rest of the article in question is genuine by the person themselves. NewcastleCelebrities (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2012

Note: the above comment was posted, unsigned, to the talk page of this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The original version of the article contained two blatantly made-up references to newspaper articles and already had a {{BLP sources}} tag backdated to September 2010 (the article was created on 2012-06-23). Although there is some non-hoax content (assuming the person went to the schools claimed, is a radio host, and so on), I'm moving towards feeling that this should be G3-speedied as a blatant hoax. Dricherby (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't object. Tbh I would've removed the bogus sources and then nominated it for G3 myself, but I've been yelled at for trying to pull that one in the past. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete None of the cited sources mention this person in any way that would make him notable enough for inclusion in another article, let alone to have an article about himself. References to his attending school (not notable anyway) just go to those schools' sites and do not say anything about him. Stand up comedia reference says he has no tour dates. Would not be opposed to a speedy as a hoax, or wasn't there a speedy for not even trying to say anything that would make someone notable? DreamGuy (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it falls just short of WP:A7 because it does make at least some claim to importance (philanthropy, stand up comedy etc.). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my feeling, too. Dricherby (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy-delete. CSD A7 or G3, if this had not already been done so. -- KC9TV 00:44, 2 July 2012 (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.