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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Spencer[edit]

In brief, a great pile of steaming horseshit.

Although this philosopher has not published a book of his own to mass markets, he has written many lengthy essays and his work has been included in several scholarly journals. Good to know. Let's take a look at the list that's provided. They total less than twenty pages, and have appeared in four journals, the somewhat unlikely Back to the Pet Store, the conceivable Back to Nature, the all too plausible Men and Masculinities, and the irreproachably serious, indeed essential American Journal of Philosophy.

Except that not only have Back to the Pet Store and Back to Nature never existed, but the American Journal of Philosophy has never existed either. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself in Ulrich's: the 43rd ed. (2005) has nothing between Am J Philology and Am J Phys Anthrop on p.9737, and no Back tos on p.9807 other than Back to Godhead and Back to Work. (NB this does not merely mean that the journals weren't in production when Ulrich's was compiled, it means that no library had reported the existence of any back issues.)

We turn to Men and Masculinities. Sounds daftly cult-studies-ish enough to exist, and sure enough it does exist. See here. The article tells us that Spencer's "The machismo of steak: breaking the boundaries of societal constraint" came out in vol. 1 no. 1, July 1971. Gosh, super! Except that vol. 1, no. 1 came out not in July 1971 but in July 1998; and no, there's no Spencer (or steak) mentioned. (No, there was no earlier Men and Masculinities; or none that reached the attention of Ulrich's.)

I'll forgo commentary on the list for "Further Reading" other than to point out that Zeno Vendler really existed and really wrote a sensible book titled Linguistics in Philosophy which is really about language; the article about Spencer doesn't mention any interest in language.

(At this point I might point out that there is an eminent linguist named Andrew Spencer. He mostly writes about morphology and related phenomena, undoubtedly deserves an article in en:WP, and looks utterly unlike the bearded gent in our article.)

Back to the Spencer we're dealing with here. It's most interesting to note that the named influences on him don't include a single philosopher but instead are: Aldous Huxley, the novelist; Henry D Thoreau, the essayist etc., and Neil Downing, the -- uh, who the intercourse might Neil Downing be? Here he is, and if you believe that his photo was taken in 1954 then I have a bridge going for a very reasonable price that may interest you.

The article on Spencer was the creation of User:Gordonsquire. Remarkably, he has made no contributions to any other philosophical subjects; instead, his contributions have been limited to the Spencer article and this one.

Investigating the remarkable claims made for Andrew Spencer hasn't been an exclusively miserable experience but it has taken time. I leave Neil Downing, Maeve O'Donovan, other articles by their authors, articles that link to them, etc etc, to other editors more energetic than myself. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's really not much else to say, except that I've prodded Neil Downing as another apparent hoax. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moreover, aside from the mostly unsupported term author, this article makes no meaningful assertion of notability (a few spurious articles, years apart in the publications noted) and seems on the edge of an A7 speedy. Given the wording and tone there could even be some WP:BLP worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. There's an Andrew Spencer with a Myspace page [1] who's a current student at the University of Limerick, and who looks remarkably like the chap in our article. Scog (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, looking at both of these a bit further, I think they could both be speedied as hoaxes. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too. But Downing can wait a few days before oblivion, and this can too. After all, Doc Spencer has had his article for well over a year; a little longer is unlikely to do any harm. And during this period people can more easily follow up "what links to", other "contributions" by ~~perps~~ contributors, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoaxes aren't a speedy deletion category (though you could argue that the article doesn't actually make any claim no notability, which is). Black Kite 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See speedy G3, I do think these are obvious hoaxes (the pictures cinch it) but running them through here is helpful too. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot tip: Contribution histories of interest: Therealneildowning, Johnljarvis. Could the latter be related to this person? (My own guess: yes, student–teacher.) And our little friend Neil: Peekaboo! Such jolly japes they have in Limerick. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, though I must confess that "Bunking with Budgerigars" made me smile. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what worries me are the housekeeping and other minor contributions by apparently sane and normal editors. Amazing that people can in all seriousness "revert vandalism" and suchlike from crapola like this. I came across the article when I wanted to look up the author of the Blackwell books on phonology and morphology, and this, on some unrelated and fictitious nonentity, immediately stank; I chose to AfD it in part because I wanted other eyes to see the chains of links and also because it would help the speedying of any subsequent re-creation (or "re(-)creation", as our bearded chum might write). -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have been funny if it weren't so sad. This lasted for well over a year. That's a shame. faithless (^speak) 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant stuff. Delete, sadly. Black Kite 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax/joke page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am another editor who has done some light housekeeping on this article in the past, wondering about the validity, but with no knowledge of philosophy, assumed good faith. I commend the nominator Hoary for the extensive research on this subject, and the MySpace page is a definite clincher that this article is a hoax. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant update: the hamster's back! -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For failure to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements via reliable sources. Smells hoaxalicious. Edison (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious? Thank you for the new word Edison ;) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... not that my vote is needed. This hoax has a long way to go before it's even a pale imitation of this. Pinkville (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (insert subpage name here), as that's where it really should belong. The fact its longevity was well over a year is proof of this. But realistically, there's no reliable sources that merit keeping it. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (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.