Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lino Brigman

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 Speedy Deleted It's also worth noting I had also considered speedying as G3 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Brigman

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

I suspect this is a hoax. The Internet has never heard of a serial killer named Lino Brigman (or of anyone with that name). The single source is a book that WorldCat has never heard about which is very strange since it was supposedly published by Random House. (Google also has 0 hits for the author of the book). Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with you. I also searched by subject, author, and alleged book title on Random House (no such author or title for them), Amazon.com (nothing), the internet (nothing) and Find A Grave. And if you look at the author name on that supposed book, I think it is a wink at the hoax. Sujokei. Su...joke...i ? — Maile (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the account might be a sockpuppet of User:Iwritegoodarticles whose sole contribution is another potential hoax. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article referenced is: Along the Sun.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons given. Invalid sources lead to suspicion of hoax articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by editor with no other contributions (except for activity that points towards the account being a sock), this article relies upon single source which cannot be found by simple search.
WP:HOAX seems most plausible explanation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem conceivable that there would not be easy to find sources. . DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete
WP:SNOWBALL, this totally incompetent hoax; it's not funny, not at all plausible. What's the matter with kids today? Used to be they could write a funny hoax.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may have overstepped my bounds, but I just deleted this article as a blatant hoax. No sources found, nothing online, no blogs, no news, no books. Nothing. Editor created another hoax article, I have blocked as NOTHERE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:30, 16 March 2016 (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.