Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chu Chi Zui

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Chi Zui

Chu Chi Zui (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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of the eye watering lack of
  verifiability, on which articles here live or die. This one doesn't look too well. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 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. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quite obviously a hoax. ShangKing (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No opinion of this being a hoax, but it doesn't pass
  WP:V let alone GNG (at least in this latin alphabet spelling).Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment -- I cannot comment on whether this is a hoax, but the story has a credible feel about it to me, not that I am an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 15 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]
• Delete Btw, this is probably the oldest hoax on Wikipedia so far discovered. Funplussmart (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 18 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
  ]
  • @Coolabahapple: I guess I don't see a need for bots doing it if editors like me occasionally do it, there might be tools for editors to do it, but I'm not entirely sure. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Champion, a bit like me adding "use dmy/oz english" tags to appropriate OZ articles, around 8,000 articles checked, 180,000+ to go:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 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) talk 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Quack? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @IntoThinAir: Confirmed, note that the link to the blog on Cialovesyou's user page and the one I mentioned in the rationale points to the same profile, so I guess it's the same editor having a go at how quickly it would be spotted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:53, 20 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.