Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Simpson (2nd nomination)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Simpson[edit]

Declined speedy. The article claims he was a well-known scientist, the sources say he impersonated a zoo employee for unknown reasons. As he was known for one fairly minor thing, article should be deleted. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

despite the declined speedy, it has been speedily deleted before, see above link to previous AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the hoaxing surrounding this article and the previous AfD, I am also asking that this article be creation protected. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, all the information i have on this poor young fellow came from a Zoo journal, and an Animal entrichment site, so i assumed it is for real. I have rang around and i have been informed that he was a rather good scientist, he studied in america some were. A talented young man he was but that seems a bit pointless now. I will have to agree with the deletion, as i dont believe the article can contribute anymore to wikipedia 122.129.17.239 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update The article's creator has consented to deletion, now tagged as G7 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The impersonation of a scientist was not a one-time thing but something that extended over a number of years. The article should now focus on him as an impersonator and as someone with a disorder that led to his death. There should be enough information from reliable sources (and from the coroner's inquest, if one takes place) to put together a good article. He had achieved notability as a fraud before his death, so this is not a matter of someone being made notable only by the manner of his death. --Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree that he had achieved any real notability as an impersonator before his death. He fooled some people at retail establishments with his fake business cards and uniforms, but there is no evidence he was ever taken seriously as a scientist by actual scientists or zoologists.I suppose we will find out over the next few days what the repercussions of his death might be... Beeblbrox (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete - Impersonating a scientist does not make one a scientist, and lying about a scientific accomplishment does not make one notable for that accomplishment, as the article claimed (with no sources for it). Also, how did he impersonate a scientist for "years" when he was only 19 at the time of his death? He's a nn con artist who got a day of news coverage, and therefore fails every possible criterion of WP:N. MSJapan (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. people can be notable as impostors but there is too little evidence of past coverage to demonstrate the notability of this one. In terms of the coverage from the last few days it also seems to be limited, and for the moment WP:NOT#NEWS certainly still applies. If it turns out that there is substantial coverage beyond around the time of his death, the article might deserve to be recreated then. I'd want to see if the story is forgotten about 6 months from now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not even convinced he's dead, I've not been able to find any evidence of that online. As pointed out below, the facts just do not add up with this article, and the whole thing smells fishy. However, even if we take it at face value, WP:BLP1E would seem to apply, impersonating a zookeeper is hardly criminal mastermind material. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That is a recurring problem with articles related to hoaxes and hoaxers, it very difficult sometimes to separate the fact from the fiction. Luckily we have WP:V and WP:RS to help us in such situations. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting new remarks on the articles talk page that suggest he isn't dead at all and has been editing his MySpace. This whole thing is stinking more all the time. Ironic quote on the MySpace profile "Never Be Afraid To Be Who You Really Are". Beeblbrox (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a scientist, not dead, and not notable. He claimed to be a "big cat" expert working for an Aussie zoo to big-note himself, and then tried to get a job in another zoo claiming his experience. But hardly notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment It now seems highly likely that in fact CheetahKeeper and the IP who have edited this article and provided information on his "death" were both actually Adrian Simpson himself, continuing his foolish hoaxes here on Wikipedia now that he's been caught in the real world. CheetahKeeper has even "impersonated" a Wikipedia administrator diff. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (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.