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. WjBscribe 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Thomas

[edit]

Patent hoax; technically not proddable/CSDable under WP policy so bringing it here — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - 57 Google hits, none of which are related to the article subject. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless 'another man' can rapidly 'impregnate' this article with sources. Pursey 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete References are of no relavance whatsoever. No google hits that are relavant. No references to backup article content. Assume hoax. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has clearly given sources from the British library and not all historical events are posted on the internet. It is true that lately there has been vandalisment on this article, beefing up his criminal status, but the sources clearly indicate Joseph Thomas's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.115.37 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first post in the above user's contribution history not to be vandalism — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 x Open proxy, blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks awfully hoaxy to me. Delete unless someone comes up with really definitive sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable sources have been cited as to this man's existence- i think we should keep this article unless someone checks the sources and sees if he is actually mentioned. Pekaak 09:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the facts themselves may have been exaggerated by vandals, however there should be no doubt at all that Joseph Thomas existed. Humjosh 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)— Humjosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep A close friend of mine came across Joseph Thomas in a reliable source while studying at university. Therefore it is only fair to keep the article while the existence of this man is under debate, although really there should be no debate at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) — 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete per nomination. The sockpuppets have been less than convincing about the existence of this 'reliable source'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socketpuppets indeed - all 3 edits made within a timeframe of 15mins. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reported here as this isn't the first time these accounts have tag-teamed — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The google search gives us virtually a big donut outside of Wikipedia.--JForget 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This article has clearly given sources which are books. Wikipedia allows these sources and you don't need an internet source. This article has clear historical importance and has a rightful place on wikipedia like any other sourced article and it would be an outrage to delete it. Johnthepcson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — Johnthepcson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very Strong Keep I own the book 1912 that is sourced and can confirm that it deals with the attack on taft by Weasel Thomas. TrevorTheBox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.128.207 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — 62.31.128.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is actually 62.31.128.207's second contribution to this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in the first one, it somehow slipped his/her mind that he actually owned the book in question...how odd! Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN criminal. Bearian 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost certain hoax created by a team of sock/meat puppets. In the unlikely event that any established user would like to take the time to look up the refs and check whether there's a shred of truth in it, I'd suggest userfying it until they have time to do so. Iain99 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources referenced are definately real books... perhaps sources which could be verified should be found by the author of the page, or alternatively give further proof? The links to the British Library cannot be followed without a British Library user account. Alternatively, this page could be categorised under myths and legends, as its content seems rather unlikely, but without further research into Taft, and the subject of this article, it should not be deleted.

The books do exist, however the links do not show this. Their relavence to the subject is however to be questioned. Also, some extreme exaggeration of what is no more than a myth causes this article to be no more than nonsense. The author must be asked to either improve on this article, or leave it for deletion, as it cannot remain in its current, ridiculous state. Presenting Weasel Thomas as a real life figure can only lead to deletion, since it is verifiably untrue.

A suggestion: Rename this page "Legend of Weasel Thomas". regds. Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) — Save the truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Legends have to be notable and sourced as well - just because something gets made up at school one day doesn't mean Wikipedia has to cover it as a legend. Iain99 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt that this sounded intriguing... if it was a real legend... I know that if you look in the People/Myths and Legends section you get far more ridiculous legend which are ceritified as REAL legends...

Save the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save the truth (talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2007 (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.