Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hewitt (impostor)

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 no consensus. The addition of a source was enough to convince a few folks to support keeping this or at least taking a neutral stance. There's not a consensus to delete, but there's not exactly a consensus to keep either since we only seem to have one published sources on this fellow. It would be helpful if Skysmith could track down the book and add specific citations with page numbers. There's a possibility that the person fails WP:N if the book mentions are only trivial, but we're kind of stymied until we know what's there, and given the keep sentiment expressed below defaulting to that seems the best course for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hewitt (impostor)

Martin Hewitt (impostor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Does this person even exist? There is a vague smell of hoax. A quick Google search does not seem to reveal other than Wikipedia mirrors and other people of the same name. Goochelaar (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is long enough ago that internet refs are unlikely to exist. The article's creator has a large number of good contributions. Hoax seems to be a premature conclusion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article has been on WP since Jan 2004 and it still has no references or citations of any kind. I tried to do various kinds of GoogleSearches and came up with nothing but a bunch of mirrors and clones for the WP article. So far, nothing to indicate that this person even exists and the entry is one giant WP:V problem. I do not find Fabrictramp's comment persuasive in terms of the notability of the subject. If the subject were notable, there would be something about him in some reasonable source somewhere on the Internet. Even if it turns out that this person does exist, it is hard to imagine how WP:N or WP:BIO or any other notability guideline could be satisfied here, given the dearth of Internet references. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to Neutral for the time being, pending verification of sources mentioned by Skysmith below(at which time I'll probably change it to keep). I'd still like someone who has physical access to the book to look it up, see if there are newspaper and magazine mentions of the subject cited in the book and, preferably, add them to the WP entry. I hope that the closing admin will give this AfD sufficient time for this. Nsk92 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional delete pending author User:Skysmith's response. I agree with Fabrictramp that Skysmith's good contribution history (including starting numerous articles on famous impostors) means this is probably not a hoax. But we still need to see sources (and I can't find any on the Internet, Westlaw, or the New York Times archives). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I take it on good faith per above that this isn't a hoax, but it still fails WP:V as I cannot find a single corraborating source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by the nominator - I am sorry if I have given the false impression of accusing the first contributor (User:Skysmith) of being a hoaxer. I just meant that such a colourful biography of such a colourful character, with no sources to support it, reads somewhat like a made-up story, even if it is not. I apologise if I seemed to imply otherwise. Goochelaar (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and therefore not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources are added as WP:BLP applies (since there is no indication the man is deceased). 23skidoo (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep + Comment The imposture happened so long ago that there is no reference to it in internet. My main sources are books (and please, no comments "add a link", please). I've included the one reference I remember but I am not home at the moment so I'll have to check the exact pages later. I've used the same book as a reference before. The other I remember is an old Reader's Digest book with a name that escaped me at the moment - Skysmith (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the book reference. I looked it up on Amazon and Barnes&Noble and there is a slight discrepancy in terms of the spelling of the title that other participants should be aware of. Both B&N[1] and Amazon[2] list the title under "Imposters Six Kinds of Liar". However, Amazon has the picture of the cover of the book where the title is "Impostors: Six Kinds of Liar". I am not sure what accounts for the spelling discrepancy but people should probably use the "imposters" spelling when doing searches. About the book itself. I checked and our university library does not have the book and our city library does not have it either. I am not sufficiently interested in the subject to actually order it from Amazon but I'd appreciate some more details from those who have the book. For example, does the book cite any newspaper/magazine articles about Martin Hewitt and his hoaxes? If yes, which articles and where? Are there any other books that mention Martin Hewitt as an impostor? To me, at least, it is important to know this when determining notability. If the only source is the book of Burton, then I do not see the subject as passing either WP:N or WP:BIO. If there are other sources to cite, then maybe. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I found several reviews of the "Impostors" book on Westlaw. None of them mentions Martin Hewitt -- which doesn't mean he's not in there, just that someone is going to have to actually find the book to verify this. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I do not have access to the book right now so I cannot actually check. If I remember correctly (and I do have to check), he is mainly mentioned. The book mainly refers to other books (and couple of historical newspaper articles). The other book I remember is the one from the Reader's Digest from the 1980's. As for the Amazon - well, I do not know who inputs the book titles but I have seen several typos myself. And the page of my book does say "Impostors" - Skysmith (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Skysmith. Sources don't have to be online, and book reference has been added. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable hoaxer.DGG (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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.