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.
Certainly a hoax, created on April 1 of 2006. The only mention of the name, outside of Wikipedia mirrors is on
this blog, note that the entries were created on the same date and they directly refer to Wikipedia. There are no mentions of the name in Google Books or Scholar, and as a Chinese speaker, it does not sound like a typical Chinese name to me. So delete and archive to
WP:HOAXLIST. - CHAMPION(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, very likely a hoax as indicated by the blog which used Mao Zedong to illustrate the person. It is a possible Chinese name, however, looking through some Chinese lists of notable Roman Catholics I see no name that looks that like it could be this person, I'm therefore inclined to delete it. If the nom is certain that it is a hoax, then a speedy delete is in order.
Hzh (
talk)
12:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This fellow is almost certainly fictitious; the blog clearly used an image of
Mao Zedong to depict him. Honestly, this article is probably the result of a prank. ―
SusmuffinTalk07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Deletre The story may have a "credible feel" to it, but it lacks any sources. That a totally unsourced, probably hoax like this has existed on Wikipedia for 12 years is a severe indictement of the accuracy of Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, i see this was created way back in 2006 by a
spa, a question for the wiki boffins out there, why isnt there a bot trawling for articles like this one ie. old articles created by an ip/spa with no references is tagged/categorised as needs to be reviewed? ps. well done
Champion for finding it.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
03:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The most depressing thing about this apparent hoax isn't even that it has survived for so long--it's that it's survived for so long even though someone posted on the talk page about it being an apparent hoax in 2006 (shortly after this article was created). How the fuck did no one notice this message until now? I don't know the answer to this question but it clearly points to a serious underlying problem here that this slipped under the radar for so long.
IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning)talk23:41, 19 July 2018 (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.