Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock

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 speedy delete. per G3 as a blatant hoax. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bridgestock[edit]

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

Article was Prodded with a rationale: This article is a hoax, Nicholas Bridgestock is fictitious. He is not mentioned in Parliamentary Socialism or A Short History of the Labour Party two of the books falsely listed as sources. Nor are there any references I can find to him elsewhere.

Prod was removed by IP with rationale: This article is not a hoax, the new world order are attempting to conceal evidence of this mans existence

Procedural nomination. GB fan 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—the new world order is covering its tracks well, as all of the cited sources exist (other than "breach of promise", there's not enough info there to track that down), and none of them have even a snippet view on gbooks. all are "no preview." on the other hand, the only gbooks hit for the name points back to the article. there is no electronic trace of the man's existence that i can find, even in various proprietary databases. almost surely is a hoax. does participating in this afd mean feeding the trolls?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure of verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—per above comments; looked some more, still nothing found.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per G3 as a blatant hoax. Only Ghits that come up are echoes of this WP page and the James Callaghan page, from before the "Nicholas Bridgestock" references were removed from there as hoaxes. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It's a hoax, the IP is not seriously questioning that. Get rid of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I previously left a couple of comments on the talk pages of the article creator and - spot the connection! - the IP address mentioned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2011 (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.