Talk:John Hetherington: Difference between revisions
deleting my old question |
m WPBIO banner fixes + cleanup (Task: 17) using AWB (8413) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Biography |
|||
{{WPBiography |
|||
|living=no |
|living=no |
||
|class=stub |
|class=stub |
||
|priority= |
|||
|listas=Hetherington, John |
|listas=Hetherington, John |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
==Untitled== |
|||
i agree, this should go... theres nothing to back it up that i can find and its already been removed from the entry on top hats. why would people run from a hat? ([[User:Doughboy 101|Doughboy 101]] ([[User talk:Doughboy 101|talk]]) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)) |
i agree, this should go... theres nothing to back it up that i can find and its already been removed from the entry on top hats. why would people run from a hat? ([[User:Doughboy 101|Doughboy 101]] ([[User talk:Doughboy 101|talk]]) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)) |
||
Revision as of 17:46, 16 September 2012
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Fashion Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Untitled
i agree, this should go... theres nothing to back it up that i can find and its already been removed from the entry on top hats. why would people run from a hat? (Doughboy 101 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
Propose this article's deletion. The article consists entirely of an unverifiable and, frankly, highly dubious story about people rioting at the sight of an article of clothing. For me, this is pretty uncontroversially a non-encyclopedic (and, for that matter, non-factual) article.
-Dylan Rowe
The only supporting articles I could find for the outrageous story about John Hetherington' inciting of a riot and his subsequent banishment were all written by John Berendt. Articles supposedly written by this member of the International Formalwear Association are surprisingly common. But they are all nearly identical and deal with the same subject matter. This article may very well be a partial or complete fabrication, and at the very least begs for further investigation.
-Cody Little
Proposed for deletion
Believe this is a relatively uncontroversial candidate for deletion. Story is manifestly bogus. Source for the story is a secondary reference in the 1920s to a supposed article published thirty years previous telling a story from a hundred years ago.
Could rewrite to make it an article about the story as an urban legend, but just not noteworthy enough.
Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.234.136 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- The story's bogus nature is made clear in the article and by it being in the "Pseudohistory" category, but it should be retained as it is a very well known piece of pseudohistory which is mentioned in many books, articles, and websites as factual and is still surfacing now and then. Salmanazar (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)