This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I've now listed this twice for speedy deletion. Can't list for AfD, as the old AfD is still in existence. Please look at the deletion record and the previous discussion. You'd think Wikipedians would be keeping more of an eye out for hoaxes at the moment... Average Earthman 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Alan McIlwraith is a complete hoaxer, but he is now a famous hoaxer, since he's featured in national newspapers. Should his fame (or infamy) entitle him to a wikipedia page, or should it be suppressed because he's an idiot? I don't have an answer, just throwing it out for conjecture.
He probably deserves a mention now for his infamy,as he's mentioned in the papers etc. Just a brief footnote, nothing more. Is it possible to read the own self-indulgent article just for giggles? Bensonby 09:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, this is such a goodie. Frontpage news in the Daily Retard today.
But if he was rumbled as far back as October, why is it only making the papers today?
Now, how do I go about writing my entry??
11 April 2006
This should be kept up as it resulted in exposing two jokes for the price of one - McIlwraith, but also the Daily Retard, who tried to pass off as an "exclusive" something that's been available to all for free over the last 6 months. It's typical of that rag, fleecing others work off the net & trying to pass it off as original. Any day now there will be an "Elvis is dead EXCLUSIVE!" headline from them - 14/4/2006
So he tried to recreate the article twice more?? How's that for persistence!! What a numpty.
Beth 12 April 2006
here he is again, SqueakBox 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why slag off the Daily Record? How many Internet users would do a search on a Sir Alan Mcilwraith when the original entry was live? You guys only deleted a fake entry. Well done, but Wikipedia does this everyday. A Wikipedia fake yes. However would anyone have known how far he went with the charade? In a word, no.
The Daily Record did have an exclusive because look at the amount of stories from people who worked with this head case or encountered them. It is a sad state of affairs that he was allowed to go about doing this, with his employers not checking out his background.
The press uncovered a man with serious problems, beyond the normal realms of fantasisers. The public had a right to know, especially those that worked with him.
Regardless of what some people think of the Daily Record, their information was 100% accurate in this case. If he wasn't rumbled by the press, Sir Alan would have continued his creepy life and who knows where it would end? If Dell or any of his employers in the past found out, he would have been sacked which then Alan could go somewhere else and continue the fraud.
He is an insult to anyone who died in conflict, and he abused the good work of several charities for his own ends.
Guys, Alan had a 2nd entry in Feb 2006 I believe, which was similar to the October 2005 entry. Nobody who worked with him knew about the original entry that contained the UN Speech, the apparent intervention to stop an act of terrorism in London and last but not least the Sandhurst yarn about the faces. I didnt rumble him to the press, however from my sources nobody knew about the Oct 2005 entry. Alan showed off the Feb 2006 entry at the call centre. So whoever rumbled him must have shown that entry to the paper.
This article had no history until it was unprotected and therefore the Guardian and others didn't have access to the information we do now, with Average Earthman spotting the original hoax within a few days; hence the problem came out of the way the article had been protected to hide its history, ie it was wikipedia's fault and not that of the newspapers. If they'd had the info we have now but which had been hidden the press articles would have looked very different, SqueakBox 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This article was started on 5 October 2005; spotted as a hoax with verification requested on 10 October; listed for deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith on 20 October; deleted on 26 October; recreated on 21 December 2005; deleted again on 24 December; created yet again on 17 February 2006 at 10:53; marked for deletion at 10:55; text removed by its author at 11:00; and the blank page deleted at 16:19. --Henrygb 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability of the hoax is now very well established - I think its time it had its own article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and he clearly wont be able to do so now so Template:Editprotected and have listed the article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Alan Mcilwraith, SqueakBox 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Walter Mitty page we can link him to?
Beth
12th April 2006
Though I'm not sure we can take the DoB as gospel, given that he's lied about everything else. He'd be a bit of an old looking 28 year old.
Beth 13th April 2006
I know it's naughty, but I checked his payroll entry at BT (I work for a 3rd party) and it was unusual. Shows him not living in glasgow. Why did he tell BT he lived in #######? Mum's address. Sorry, can't recall his date of birth, just wanted to see if he was down as "sir" and change it!
A mirror of the original article still exists on Nationmaster. Was the Wiki entry as replete with spelling errors and poor punctuation as this one?
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Alan-Mcilwraith
Beth
Article is still up on Nationmaster. Does anyone else think McIlwraith looks a bit like David "Dr Who" Tennant?
Beth 18th April 2006
what a whopper this guy is!!!
Alas, I don't really know how to create sub-entries, but I agree the original article is so sublime it warrants inclusion.
I wonder when McIlwraith's exclusive interview will appear in the Record? He shouldn't talk for less than £10k. He'll need the money now Dell have instituted a shoot-to-kill policy should he be spotted on the premises.
Beth 13th April 2006
Good job on Wiki, getting rid of Natos hero...never mind these are bound to slip through the cracks from time to time!
It was claimed he wrote the wikipedia article to bolster his position. Yet it may well have been that this whole thing started when he developed what was basically a vanity article about himself (and we have hundreds of those a week) and until we can source that the fraud came before the wikipedia article we must not imply that this was so, SqueakBox 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is not the same as a speedy. it clearly doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy. You have the freedom to put an Afd on the article, though I for one would strongly oppose. Why not try to improve the article as the state of the sarticle should not be a factor in the Afd, what counts is his notability and there are clearly less notable people here, SqueakBox 14:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have now removed the speedy. Put an Afd on it, this is not a speedy candidate as this article is not apt for deletion without debate,SqueakBox 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Awwww. I'd leave it. Why delete?
Beth 10th May 2006
is up on my blog: [4] - David Gerard 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there no way we can put this on the page? I know it is a blog but David is our most famous UK wikipedian, perhaps if there were consensus we could put it up, SqueakBox 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-17/Persistent hoax
For a while now there has been folk wasting time reverting there and back again with an external link... No Wikipedia article should be more external links than content - and this article was 14 external links to 7 lines of content (YMMV). I have trimmed this down to 2 external links. If any of the rest are essential then consider adding them as references (to specific points in the text). Thanks/wangi 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is a LiveJurnal entry [5] even worth including in the external links? -Will Beback 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Today's Grauniad has a follow-up article on Mcilwraith: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1827956,00.html where he's claiming that the whole episode stemmed from a knock on the head. Someone may want to integrate some of the information into the article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the original photo (Image:Alan.No2.jpg) since the retouched image is claiming it's PD when it's not and the retouch adds nothing - in fact it is way too bright, off colour and has excessive JPG artifacts. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
User Cola4 has edited this article several times in a way that is essentially vandalism. The article on Alan Mcilwraith is serious and necessary due to the amount of media coverage that the case has received. Hopefully it will not be necessary to block Cola4's IP address. This should be done if the unhelpful edits do not cease. --Ianmacm 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Mcilwraith is not a reliable source about himself. All his claims have been deleted. -- 75.24.107.158 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing problem with vandalism to the article on Alan Mcilwraith and its accompanying talk page, it might help if the pages were semi-protected for a while. This would be a pity for serious users, but it is becoming tiring to keep having to remove vandalism from these two pages. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more details on this policy. --Ianmacm 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the copyright status on the image of Alan Mcilwraith? The image was uploaded by Mcilwraith himself. --Ianmacm 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a pity that some people are still trying to get this article removed. Alan Mcilwraith is worth a brief Wikipedia article due the amount of media coverage that the case has received, and also because a hoax Wikipedia article was involved at one point. This article has survived a full debate about its merit and registered Wikipedia users should abide by the decision.--Ianmacm 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
>>>Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005. The article was created under the username "MilitaryPro"
How do we know it was McIlwraith himself who authored the initial wiki entry? Has he admitted to being "MillitaryPro"? I understood from newspapers interviews MacIlwraith was claiming a "friend" (aherm) had written the entry. Did I get this wrong?
Beth78 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting point, but unless Alan Mcilwraith specifically denies having written the October 5 2005 entry and someone else comes forward and claims to have written it, it will have to be assumed that he wrote it himself. --Ianmacm 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is McIlwraith considered a Scottish celebrity according to the categories box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uranusx2006 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 September 2006.
I still don't buy it, and certainly don't have the stomach to tackle the "big problem" :) If someone is not well known for their profession then it makes no sense to categorise them under a profession. Thanks/wangi 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This article was speedy deleted 9 times, I'm sure I nominated a couple of those. --ArmadilloFromHell 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Have I gone COMPLETELY bonkers or has this article been reverted to the original gem again??
Help ma boab! This guy McIlwraith sure is persistent.
Beth78 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There is still confusion over whether the name is spelled Mcilwraith or McIlwraith. Media coverage has given both spellings, and the Wikipedia article contains both spellings, which is unsatisfactory.--Ianmacm 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a quite detailed descrption of the military uniform that Alan Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph. Not being a military expert, I am not in a position to comment on how accurate it is, but any other comments on this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This person is not notable as a person and the article title should properly identify that. There is precedent for this at Henryk Batuta hoax and Essjay controversy. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
After a look through the early page history of the article, it became clear that the saga was not confined to a few edits in October 2005. The article was online for most of December 2005, and was still available after requests for speedy deletion in February 2006, when a template protected the article from recreation. Although the initial suspicions emerged after five days, it would have been possible to read the article for a considerably longer period. This is important and the current article should make this clear. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
User:MilitaryPro made his first appearance in the edit history of Alan Mcilwraith at 20:34 GMT on 5 October 2005 (here). MilitaryPro made numerous edits in October 2005, and added the photograph of Mcilwraith in military uniform at 22:45 GMT on 9 October 2005 (here). The page was nominated for speedy deletion on 22 December 2005 (here). The article was recreated by MilitaryPro at 10:53 GMT on 17 February 2006 (here), and it was deleted and protected from recreation the same day. The article was unprotected to report on media coverage of the hoax on 12 April 2006 (here).
Incidentally, in October 2005 Alan Mcilwraith was a CBE, but by December 2005 he had been elevated to the rank of KBE.
On another note, I have removed this description of the military uniform that Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph that he uploaded to Wikipedia:
He is wearing the number 2 dress uniform of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, while the diced band pattern around the Glengarry is specific to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
This may be true, but it needs to be reviewed by someone who is an expert on Scottish military uniforms, or it could be unreliable. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the spelling in the section in quote marks contains the exact text of Alan Mcilwraith's original Wikipedia entry, including the spelling mistakes. The article points this out, and there is an HTML comment as well. The word government is spelled as goverment in this section, but this is intentional, so if it is changed it will be reverted. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All of the material in the article is reliably sourced from the newspaper articles mentioned. Unfortunately some of the links are now dead due to link rot, so some editing is needed to create up to date citations for the article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been nearly 10 years since the main matter of this article occurred, and 6 since there has been any mention of him in the news. I fail to see why Mcilwraith is considered notable enough to warrant an article, when he is not only a fraud but it seems the news has long since moved on to other subjects. I feel it's also worth mentioning that Mcilwraith created the article about himself specifically so he could achieve recognition and notoriety, and his later activities show this to be a major part of his personality disorder. By keeping the article about him, we are not necessarily shaming him (which is itself not a valid reason to keep an article), but rather playing right into his hands. Any attention is good attention to someone like this. I would like to have a discussion about this before I recommend the article for deletion.Legitimus (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Mcilwraith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Although I've taken a look through the various AfD discussions, I can't find any evidence that the original page was created by Mcilwraith. the Guardian exposé from July 2006 states that "Friends set up a Wikipedia page" about him: while it's plausible that these "friends" are, in fact, Mcilwraith himself, does the assertion that "Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005" need to be changed to something like "On 5 October 2005 a Wikipedia article was created, either by Mcilwraith or someone close to him"? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In September of 2023, user Humok (who it turns out was a sock-puppet) removed a few unsourced paragraphs, but also a sourced paragraph. They then removed the entirety of the section quoting Mcilwraith's Wikipedia page. I find these edits to be a bit unhelpful, as the first is removing sourced content, and the second removes what the article is about. Would anyone mind if I restored the version before these revisions? I would re-add the constructive edits made after. Slamforeman (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Pasting in the entire article as it was written in 2005 is entirely undue. Perhaps a single passage could be quoted, as is done on the Daily Record article ([11]), and a link to the previous version of the page can be linked ([12]). — HTGS (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)