Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Pembroke

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pembroke

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

This appears to be a hoax; check this search. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much reached the same conclusion as Erpert, even if it is not a hoax there is certainly no verifiable sources for the guy online --Errant
Talk) 19:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I strongly suspect it is a hoax, but as gut feelings aren’t objective and entymology ain’t my field of knowledge, would appreciate the input of others who do know something about the subject. --Technopat (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't need to be an etymologist to see that this is made up. It doesn't seem to get any notice, despite it being a "revolutionary work, widely respected and referred to by classicists nowadays" [1]. Pretty dull as hoaxes go. Mandsford 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax.
talk) 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main thing it claims he is notable for, a book, cannot be found in Google books. Regardless of its veracity, it fails
WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 20 June 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.