Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RubberNut Bob

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]