Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John-Anthony Cooney

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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 04:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John-Anthony Cooney

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I found no coverage definitively about this person, other than his personal website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE, the only coverage I could find under any given variation of his name was an obituary of a different John-Anthony Cooney. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly prestigious about the La Merde d'Or , it doesn't have an available Wikipedia entry, and it certainly doesn't provide notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has got to be a hoax, surely? La Merde d'Or indeed. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I did chuckle. Caro7200 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find anything that suggests he's notable --Devokewater @ 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search finds nothing, although I did not search very hard. La Merde d'Or made me thing of Artist's Shit, but Artist's Shit (done in 1961) is of course old shit in comparison to this newer item.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear hoax. "La Merde D'Or" quite literally meaning "the golden shite" in French and the 'real name' he's given being a clearly made up name suggests this has got to be a joke article. It seems to have stood for nearly 12 years now, so could be directed towards the 'list of hoaxes on Wikipedia' page after deletion? ser! (let's discuss it). 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: Do you mean the article and the web site that is linked to in the external links are both fake? I read the article as promotional use of Wikipedia, although I guess the web site could be faked too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I had assumed it was a hoax rather than promotional given the general jokey nature of the page, but now that you say it, it could honestly be either! Worth noting you can easily make a website to fake a person's existence, which seems plausible given that's the singular bit of coverage we can find of the subject. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's of course possible to fake the web site but that would be a lot of work in this case as you would have to fake all those images too.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's art art and performance art... Caro7200 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hoax. Vexations (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we stopped having articles only sourced to the subject of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that a junk article like this has existed for over 11 years is very disturbing. The creator made several edits but all between 22 Dec. 2008 and 30 January 2009. He created at least two more articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things get worse, there used to be the "official" Japanese website and an "uunofficial" fansite listed. The current version is not as extreme as one that existed in 2014. Why the editor then just removed some of the puffery instead of questioning the very article is hard to say. I have even at times seen cases where editors had removed every source but IMDb. If you think no source but IMDb is any good, just nominate the article for deletion. This may indicate nominating for deletion is too convoluted a process, and maybe also too easy to expose one to attacks from hard core preservationist radicals. On the other hand creating articles is way to easy. You can do itwith 1 edit. Deleting takes at least 3 edits, and needs anothers approval, and you often have to do more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2012 the article had a claim added that he had been entered in the Guiness Book of World Records with this quote "and his ability to eat an entire toblerone bar in 10 seconds, a feat which has earned him a place in the Guinness Book of Records. " There was also at one point a claim that he had had a role in the "hit film" The Clown that Got Eaten By a Dinosaur. I am beginning to wonder how these bogus claims were removed but no one was asking why we had this article with no reliable sources. As I have said before, we really need to start making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, we have the rather severely backlogged WP:NPP already. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is exactly why we need all new articles to be proactively approved for creation, not approved after the fact, since after the fact monotiring is clearly failing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Johnpacklambert, NPP didn't exist when the article was created in 2008. The only editor with New page reviewers rights was the editor who nominated it for deletion. After the fact monitoring is working. There is no need to discredit their good work. Vexations (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 11 years of having a hoax sit around is way too long. Monitoring after the fact is not working is we have hoax articles exist for that long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article subject isn't a hoax: the person appears to exist. Some of the facts seem to have been made up though, in a sort of juvenile humour way.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2020 (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.