Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Roberts (businessman): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::[[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
::[[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete all 3''' and '''salt'''. Complying with the policy of identifying oneself as involved, I am the contributor who spotted the hoax and did the research. Many thanks to [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) to bring this to AFD. The Wikipedia AFD is a bit daunting ;-) [[User:HagenUK|HagenUK]] ([[User talk:HagenUK|talk]]) 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete all 3''' and '''salt'''. Complying with the policy of identifying oneself as involved, I am the contributor who spotted the hoax and did the research. Many thanks to [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) to bring this to AFD. The Wikipedia AFD is a bit daunting ;-) [[User:HagenUK|HagenUK]] ([[User talk:HagenUK|talk]]) 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' I agree that some information in these articles is unverifiable. I see how it is therefore wrong to keep these articles in place. I would, therefore, move for deletion as a point of making sure everything on Wikipedia is as correct as possible. It is all correct, but I can't prove it, so I move for deletion. |
*'''Delete''' I agree that some information in these articles is unverifiable. I see how it is therefore wrong to keep these articles in place. I would, therefore, move for deletion as a point of making sure everything on Wikipedia is as correct as possible. It is all correct, but I can't prove it, so I move for deletion. [[Special:Contributions/194.30.152.21|194.30.152.21]] ([[User talk:194.30.152.21|talk]]) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:54, 16 July 2008
- Andrew Roberts (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Roberts Investments Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stefan Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a more elaborate hoax than most - credit to HagenUK for spotting it and doing most of the research to demolish it. A quite pretty but markedly uninformative website has been set up for "Roberts Investments Group", which doesn't give an address or even a telephone number. There are also even less informative web-sites for "Chateau Le Mont", the "Howard Art Gallery" of New York, and something called "Call for Change". None of these gives a telephone number - all invite contact by email only.
When we try to make any independent checks, we get nowhere. Andrew Roberts is claimed to be #184 on the Sunday Times rich list, but a search for "Roberts" doesn't find him. The links provided to Time and Forbes don't take you to any mention of him. A search of the London telephone directory does not find the Group. A Google search for "Roberts Investments Group" finds a couple of others - a real estate broker in Norcross, GA and another in Cedar Hill, TX whose CEO is Tim Roberts - plus some blog-type mentions, but no independent reliable source.
The sole author Fuzzybuddy (talk · contribs) has some earlier contributions, but has worked on nothing but this since May. I can't imagine why anyone would go to all this trouble, but the failure of the rich-list check and the absence of any independent confirmation leave me quite clear - it's a hoax. For what it's worth, an article called "Stefan Roberts" was deleted in 2005 as "self-admitted hoax". Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - appears to be an elaborate hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - Not verifiable (WP:V and self published sources). blue520 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I'm having problems verifying as well. I'm 99.9% sure at this point that the nominator's right and that it's a hoax. On the off chance it's actually not, at some point we'll get a reliable source and can recreate the article. In the mean time, having a false article is far more damaging to WP than the the .1% chance that it's actually true. Vickser (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all 3 per the above, with a tip of the hat to User:JohnCD and user:HagenUK for sorting them all out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Author has removed
AfDprod and hoax tags from all 3 articles. JuJube (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - Delete All as hoax. Also recommend Salt as they may be an investment hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- And especially since it appears that two of the articles have been deleted four times before, see:
- UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all 3 and salt. Complying with the policy of identifying oneself as involved, I am the contributor who spotted the hoax and did the research. Many thanks to JohnCD (talk) to bring this to AFD. The Wikipedia AFD is a bit daunting ;-) HagenUK (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that some information in these articles is unverifiable. I see how it is therefore wrong to keep these articles in place. I would, therefore, move for deletion as a point of making sure everything on Wikipedia is as correct as possible. It is all correct, but I can't prove it, so I move for deletion. 194.30.152.21 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)