Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RubberNut Bob: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:20, 13 March 2010

RubberNut Bob

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

Possible hoax, If not, the subject isn't notable. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- probable hoax. If not, it's certainly unverifiable anyway and should go. Reyk _YO! 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research if not a hoax as there are no online stories on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a probable hoax, not to mention the only Ghit is the article itself (and RubberNut Bob "is a celebrity where I live"? Come on!). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the way, speedy deletion is for blatant hoaxes, not probable hoaxes. This is indeed probably a hoax though, but is at any rate unverifiable and fails to meet general notability guidelines, lacking significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources).--Beloved Freak 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:HOAX. I tried to at least fix the format of the article, but once I got to "When the nut is busted open a condom pops out," the believability of this story all but vanished. So, I checked online and not only does it not get Google News, J-Stor, etc. results, the only three regular Google results even are all related to this article. Thus, it is almost assuredly a hoax and even if not is not something of any importance as we have nothing to verify it beyond the article creator. While we WP:AGF, we do not do so at the point of being naive and even so we need at least one non-Wikipedic source. As there are no other uses I could find of this name in fiction or otherwise, we can safely redlink this article for no merge or redirect locations exist. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Speedy delete''' as a probable hoax, not to mention the only Ghit is the article itself (and RubberNut Bob "is a celebrity where ''I'' live"? Come on!). '''Erpert''' <small>[[User talk:Erpert|(let's talk about it)]]</small> 07:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. By the way, speedy deletion is for blatant hoaxes, not probable hoaxes. This is indeed probably a hoax though, but is at any rate [[WP:V|unverifiable]] and fails to meet [[WP:N|general notability guidelines]], lacking significant (or any) coverage in reliable sources).--[[User:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#4682B4; font-family: trebuchet">Beloved</span>]][[User talk:Belovedfreak|<span style="color:#008B8B; font-family: trebuchet">Freak</span>]] 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:HOAX]].  I tried to at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RubberNut_Bob&action=historysubmit&diff=349621968&oldid=349604584 fix] the format of the article, but once I got to "When the nut is busted open a condom pops out," the believability of this story all but vanished.  So, I checked online and not only does it not get Google News, J-Stor, etc. results, the only three [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22RubberNut+Bob%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= regular Google results] even are all related to this article.  Thus, it is almost assuredly a hoax and even if not is not something of any importance as we have nothing to verify it beyond the article creator.  While we [[WP:AGF]], we do not do so at the point of being naive and even so we need at least one non-Wikipedic source.  As there are no other uses I could find of this name in fiction or otherwise, we can safely redlink this article for no merge or redirect locations exist.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)