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 speedy delete. Consensus was to delete as obvious hoaxes, all of which have already been done by User:Drmies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guozbongleur[edit]

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

Added:

Seems non-notable and possibly a hoax, as it is not mentioned in two of the three sources cited (I haven't been able to find the third). No non-Wikipedia mentions of this word online. Peter E. James (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ‣ Yes, appears to be a WP:HOAX along with connected articles. No hits in Google News, Books, or Scholar, nothing non-Wikipedia in a general Google search, and even fewer hits when the search language is limited to French. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 13:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I couldn't find notability and it smells like a hoax, to me. From following links within the article, I'm also concerned about Gustave de Zarbouble (aka "Zarbublius" — seriously?), John Bargel (aka "Snargelius" — seriously?) and the alleged restaurant La Maison du Guozbongleur [which weren't originally in the AfD — DR]. My suspicion is that they're all hoaxes but it's possible that the restaurant was real and the rest were an invented story to explain the restaurant's name. My reasons for suspecting a hoax are as follows.
- Most important, none of them has any mention outside Wikipedia, its mirrors and spam pages that use text from WP to con search engines.
- None of these France-related articles appears in French Wikipedia.
- It seems terribly convenient and unlikely that the restaurant lost its Michelin star in January 1968 and closed two weeks later. Unless there was some disaster, surely the locals would continue to eat there, as well as visitors using older versions of the guide — a nearly-Michelin-starred restaurant is still a damned fine place to eat.
- All the names are absurd and sound like Pythonesque made up French names.
- Alleged involvement in the Affair of the Poisons (all the pages cite Anne Somerset's book on the subject) but no mention in that article.
- Pepys allegedly talks about Bargel but there's no mention of "bargel" or "snarg" in his diaries at Project Gutenberg or in the Google Books fragments of the cited book of Pepys's letters.
- A citation to Kepler's Somnium, which was written before Bargel's birth.

Perhaps these other articles should be merged into this RfD? Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - I wasn't sure whether that could be done as they were created by different users (or more likely different sockpuppets), also I decided to wait for comments here before adding the other pages. There is another article, Robert de Baldoque, that probably needs to be checked, although it's possible that only a rename is needed there. Peter E. James (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the articles to the nomination. Peter E. James (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to check creation and they were indeed created at substantially different times, by different users. But I do find it suspicious that all of these users follow the same pattern: huge bursts of editing (tens of articles over a few days), interspersed with periods of weeks or months of total editing silence.

Captain Abu Read: 45 edits as a new user 2011/11/03-09, then 20 more 2011/11/16-18 and total silence since.
Nellie Seamonster: 12 edits as a new user 2009/10/20, then 8 edits 2009/11/29, then 10 edits 2009/12/29, then 10 edits 2010/02/25 and nothing since (though these are often several small edits to the same page).
Silver Starfish: 137 edits as a new user 2010/10/24-29, total silence before 90 edits 2012/04/22-27, total silence since then.
One of the Ruins: 35 edits as a new user 2012/03/12-13 and silence since then.

Doesn't prove anything but looks odd to me. Dricherby (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below for the likely banned user/wikistalker who has created these hoaxes and why he has done so. All four accounts have been listed in the latest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum, which the hoax articles cite and which in turn makes reference to the,, was created by Groomtech who was part of The Wiki House, a shared account with Kenilworth Terrace and A.K.Nole, one of the previous accounts of the banned editor Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Guozbongleur is not in my French encyclopaedia or either of my French dictionaries. All articles look like hoaxes as per analyses above.—A bit iffy (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax articles by banned user These articles all seem to be hoax articles created by sockpuppets of the banned user Echigo mole. He has just commented here using an ipsock.[1] He has also written fork articles on Rue Cardinale abd Quartier Mazarin, which are content-free forks of Aix-en-Provence dealing with the part of Aix described in some of the hoax articles. (He is a wikistalker and, having found out my name, has discovered my address in the French Pages Blanches.) The names of thehoax articles all have links to former usernames of indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of Echigo mole (Zarboublian and The Wozbongulator (talk · contribs)). Echigo mole's favourite word is "hoax". For more details please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is a hoax The history of St-Jean-de-Malte can be read up to 1896 in a homily available on Gallica here, written on the occasion of the restoration of the church and installation of a new organ.[2] There it is recounted that Saint-Jean-de-Malte was run from 1667 until 1720 by Jean-Claude Viany, who was nominated as prior by the Grand Master of the order of St John of Malta. Funds for embellishing the church and building the adjacent prior's palace (completed in 1695, now the Musee Granet) were raised using surrounding properties of the order. This contradicts the schoolboy story of Echigo mole. If more detail is required, I have access to the 1987 history of Jean-Marie Roux. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Bargel/Bargelius/Snargelius is now deleted, and so is Gustave. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LA MAISON DU GUOZBONGLEUR In the history of Aix-en-Provence the claim about the La Maison du Guozbongleur being in rue Cardinale seems to be an invention which contradicts recorded history. Here is the entry for that street in Roux-Alpheran's "Rues d'Aix, Tome 2". [3] No mention whatsoever. So hoax by Silver starfish. Mathsci (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GUOZBONGLEUR The claimed abolition of this post in 1791 cited to page 210 of "The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law", Stanford University Press,[4] (searchable version) is also an invention. There is no mention there at all. So hoax by One of the ruins. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All gone after further browsing. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's going on? Why/how have the articles been deleted without this AfD being closed? Dricherby (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the admin who deleted the articles to do the formal closures of the AfD debates. The articles were speedy-deleted as blatant hoaxes, and there's no real doubt they should have gone, but this AfD process ought to be finished off.—A bit iffy (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deleting the articles was the right thing to do. Dricherby (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2012 (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.