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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Pasquin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only 'Christopher Pasquin' on Google is a non-notable baseball player who exists only on social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook), excluding Wikipedia. Hoax? Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Records czar · · 07:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The person is clearly non-notable. The only real thing that turns up about the person (excluding linkedin.com profiles and Wikipedia itself) is this, which is the official website of Rocket Records. Clearly fails WP:ENT. smtchahal^(talk) 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails WP:GNG. The given "references" don't even mention the subject. Part of a coatrack related to Rocket Records created by an obvious single-purpose editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. All claims that would establish notability are unverified, and search of web, news, and books turns up nothing at all, which is odd given the amount of press releases and fanzine content one usually has to wade through for marginally notable music industry people when reviewing for AfC. The only fact I have been able to establish is that Mr. Pasquin has a web page for a record label, and that he married Noell Coons, almost certainly a relative of Tim Coons. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That J.A. Henckels knife set looks pretty nice. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say it... I won't say it... I can't help myself: Only the best for the brother-in-law of a 2-time grammy-nominated music executive. :) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack any evidence for the grandious claims of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kinu nailed the central problem and in addition, a couple of editors, including myself, suspect that this may be an elaborate hoax given that someone actually bought a domain name and paid for hosting a fake article [1] to support Rocket Records.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm now leaning to the view that this article is not a hoax, but just about someone who wants to be notable but isn't. Although this myspace reference [2] is not reliable, it does lead me to believe that Christopher Pasquin does exist.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Believe to be WP:HOAX. PeterWesco (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a total consensus that this should be deleted as a hoax. I hereby ask an admin to move the page to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Christopher Pasquin without creating a redirect, and add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Less than one year.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this particular article isn't worth dignifying in any such way. Likewise, it's also been said that this might not be a hoax, but is simply utterly non-notable. It's best to deny any acknowledgement of this entire coatrack of articles and move on. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "total consensus" that this is a hoax. There is claims and suppositions and there is the counterviews. There is no consensus that I see, partly cause many invovled see it as a side issue, The main issue being verifiable notability which is very lacking here. For the record I think it's not a hoax, just someone puffing up the importance of a startup label. I think there was some hoaxing to try support the lables notability but that does not make the lable itself a hoax. No point glorifying it in that silly list. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that it is a hoax, but possibility doesn't make it a hoax. The evidence supports the view of Kinu and others that this and associated articles are utterly non-notable. Its utter non-notablity is the best explanation for why it appears to be a hoax but likely isn't.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2013 (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.