Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Winter

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 delete. I'm closing this one early per the overwhelming concensus of the participants. If someone can provide the reliable sources the discussion's participants couldn't find, I have no objection to recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Winter

Obvious hoax; there is no Senator or prospective presidential candidate by this name. Prod was deleted by anon author with no explanation. Russ Blau (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax. --Hyperbole 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is likely a WP:HOAX.-- danntm ^T _C 03:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scottmsg 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Hoax, as per nom. If she was a likely presidential candidate, I believe there would be at least something online. I'm going to watch that user who created it. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No such South Carolina Senator, and is certainly not a presidential candidate (except perhaps in the gadfly category). Jeendan 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a hoax --N R S ^T/_M\^B 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above L e idi ot 10:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Also added hoax template to page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas per the above, patent hoax. Badbilltucker 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is no such South Carolina Senator.It is definitely a hoax. Doctor Evil 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freaking Speedy Delete then. Wtf are we waiting for?UberCryxic 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy deletion criterion that covers out-and-out fabrication, no matter how blatant. If I write an article saying that "Alfred E. Neuman was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1956 and is widely considered the greatest thinker of the 20th Century"; it can't be speedied because (a) it isn't patent nonsense and (b) it asserts notability. The patent nonsense criterion specifically says that being "fiction" is different from being "nonsense." --Russ Blau (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Check the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page, where Patent Nonsense is cited as a General criteria. And, on the Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page hoaxes (excluding pages on real, notable hoaxes) are described as patent nonsense. A hoax is defined as "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" in the Wikipedia:Hoaxes page. Therefore my vote goes for a speedy deletion. - Aditya Kabir 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually on the patent nonsense page it clearly states that haoxs and not examples of patent nonsense. It is listed in the "Not to be confused with" section of the page. I don't think this article should be kept however, this is not pattent nosense. --67.71.79.236 21:39, 26 September 2006 (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.