Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William G. Roll, Sr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- William G. Roll, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged as a hoax because it cites no sources. My searches for sources have returned no sources to verify the existence of this World War I veteran. Reasons for deletion could be Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If sources can be found to establish notability, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tagged the article as such, and was hoping someone would find sources that I was unable to find. --BaronLarf 10:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I look up sources and could not find any. I suspect a hoax. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources exist. Alexius08 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: either its about a citizen, or its a hoax, but its very inspirational, but wikipedia isnt about inspiration, its about fact. 72.150.245.144 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not verifiable. Royalbroil 01:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article links to two supposed relatives: William G. Roll, Jr. and Sigurd Roll. If this person is a hoax, then both these articles need to be checked.--Auric (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the 2 articles and the references are in place and the people involved existed. In fact one of the articles was done by an editor who received DYK for several article the editor has written. I still think this article is a hoax and the 2 articles were wikilink to this article as part of the hoax-Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (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.