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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salford Gaslight Murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Searches turn up no indication these muders actually happened, and the events in the article are almost exactly the same as those in John George Haigh--murderer trying to destroy bodies, attempting to obtain money from murders, and most obviously, much of the text in the "trial and execution" section is identical to that in the same section of the Haigh article; it seems apparent this was simply copied and pasted. C628 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Per nominator, probable WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a hoax; no book sources or any reliable anythings... the few hits on "Maxwell Arthur Oxton" are due to slurping of the Wikipedia article in other places, given that it has existed for long enough (February). Plow it under. §FreeRangeFrog 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax. Searches get only Wikipedia mirrors. The article is largely copied and pasted from John George Haigh as the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - certainly appears to be a hoax. The fact remains that even if it were not, we would still need reliable sources to verify the claims in the article. Given we have zero sources, verification seems unlikely. Stalwart111 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I've tagged it as a hoax, but in case it doesn't get speedied I want to show my support for this to be deleted. No sources to show notability, none come up in a search, and the article has been copied from another one. I'd suggest a blocking, but the editor hasn't been active since February.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 22 November 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.