Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Alberto Davies

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. Tan | 39 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Alberto Davies

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

This is a hoax - no such person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.199.135 (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't prove this person didn't exist, but I can't find any info on them either. Non-notable, or else hoax. The reference in the article has the title of the book incorrect, they must mean "Gibraltar: The Making of a People". Brianyoumans (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Question~~ Delete MP of Gibraltar, and but not listed on their official page [1] . If real, his service there must be before 1969. There as a representative body before that , but it was not called the Assembly. The pages do list an E H DAVIES, C.M.G., O.B.E., Financial & Development Secretary, but that does not match his career. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax. Either that or an extremely nonnotable politician. Kudos to the IP for bringing this to our attention. Them From Space 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are not correct and it does rather sound like a well thought out hoax to me. Minister for transport sounds suspicious in itself and there was no HoA at the time. Well spotted. --Gibnews (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The evidence is sufficient enough for this to be confidently called a hoax. Well done. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's sufficient evidence here to prove it's a hoax. Both references have been checked, among other checks, and there's nothing there. --Gibmetal 77 ^talk 13:10, 11 April 2010 (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.