Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:André Michard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 13:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:André Michard[edit]

This article seems to be a hoax as far as I cannot find any proves for the mere fact of existence of this person. It does not look reasonable to keep it as it can mislead some readers. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Is properly DECLINED. No evidence of hoax. If no verification is provided, it will be deleted via G13. Readers don’t read drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- People from out of the wiki community usually don't understand quite well what does it mean that some article is still a draft. They are free to suppose that this is just a normal article, only not completely prepared. You never know how a reader can find this page. Somehow or other Wikipedia is responsible for any information it contains. As for evidences, you can state that there are "no evidences of hoax" only if you did not bother to ask Google about that allegedly prominent poet. But if you rely on Wikipedia more than on Google, then just open the article Le Suicidé about Manet's painting claimed by the hoaxer to be "depicting the suicide of André Michard" and try to find that Michard mentioned there. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Readers don’t find drafts because mainspace never links to draft, and search engines mostly respect the _NOINDEX_ request. We can know from this that no one reads this page.
  
  “no evidence” means that the nominator has not provide the evidence, as in links. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  It is not possible to provide the evidence of no-existence, see Russell's teapot. But I bet there is not a single evidence of existence of this guy. That's why it is a hoax. And I have just pointed out that the claim about Manet's painting is completely wrong, Manet experts don't know about that alleged "sitter" of that picture. That's pretty good nobody reads this hoax article. But what is the reason to keep the page nobody can read? The only possible reason is that maybe one day some drafts would become normal articles. But this one would not. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  It is possible to provide evidence. Extraordinary Writ has below. You did in replies, but not in the nomination. Evidence, not proof. Evidence includes details of your attempted searches, eg link a google search, minimally. Your didn’t do that, and you said “cannot find any proves”, you cannot find any proof. “Proof” is too high a standard. Evidence that you attempted and failed to verify please.
  
  I looked at Manet’s painting. Thanks for that help. I am persuaded that this looks like hoax-vandalism. Delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Either the author will add verifying sources, or they won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this draft had just a kernel of truth, I would gladly !vote "keep per WP:NDRAFT". But this does appear to be a clear hoax: a clever one, but still an undeniably false one. Most obviously, a search finds zero results: it's difficult to believe that he "pass[ed] to posterity as one of the most intelligent and profound" French poets sub silentio. The idea that he was featured in two paintings by world-renowned artists borders on the preposterous, particularly since the not-inconsiderable literature on them fails to mention our putative poet. The melodramatic Van Gogh-like story of his life and death reeks of fabrication. And finally, the page history reveals that three Commons images ostensibly related to Michard were recently deleted as hoaxes. While most drafts are harmless, this one isn't: it has the potential to enter mainspace and harm our reputation. (Since the draft was convincing enough to cause a well-regarded functionary to twice postpone G13 deletion, the idea that it might enter and remain in mainspace is not at all far-fetched.) We don't need any more entries in the hoax museum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The hoax was too clever for my first quick look. I am averse to deleting possibly historic information lightly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax per Extraordinary Wit's points, such as the Commons files being deleted as hoaxes. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious hoax, per above. Portraits by Claude Monet and Edouard Manet - really? Spicy (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.