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 regrettable delete as unverifiable. DS 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Tedford[edit]

I firmly believe this to be a) a hoax or b) should be deleted as unverifable.

• Zero google results Link shows two irrelevant results, the first is an example of all the possible Tedford names, the second is re a Billy Troy Tedford born in Texas.
• Article originally stated one of the most decorated War hero's in World War II - the most decorated with zero google hits?
• Numerous requests for sources have been fruitless - requested here and directly to author here
• Prod removed, so here we are.

In short, we have two options - a or b above (in my opinion). Both result in Delete Glen 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even without quotes, there's sweet FA (and I don't mean featured article). Moreschi 13:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe since he is going off the Honorable Discharge Papers the article should stay. War Heros aren't ness. on the web. he used the words "one of the most", that could be one of the top 100 or top 1000. millions served in that was and if the guy has Discharge papers saying he won 4 bronze stars than he was one of the most and he deserves his name to come out. lot's of those old was heros got lost in time. Johnmvp33dont delete Comment actually made by Johnmvp33 (talk · contribs)

Comment - Ummm - this isnt terribly convincing, and this was a very silly move and a major giveaway Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I googled your name glen and came up with nothing. r u bogus??? Anykind of historian would know that people in ww1 and ww11 weren't automaticlly given there own link. I have the metals, Legel papers, Honorable discharge papers and diary of a man who was truley a war hero. just because he has been put on the internet doesn't mean a thing. Like i said, anyone can make a internet site and say whatever. Thats why it better to have papers from the US government than unclebobs candy site.com. The man was one of the most decorated ww11 vets. i'm part irish but i don't have my own link, does this mean i'm not even though my birth cert says i am???? Keep the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) .

Comment - actually my full name produces over 500 oops, 2000 hits on google, but, I'm not the one who has an article am I? (well, in all fairness I do have an article but this isnt relevant! Glen 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in current form. No sources either offline or online have been given which testify not only to the existance of this person but also to the impact of this person on society at large. If he were really notable we'd see evidence of that in two or more mentions of him in newspapers or magazines, or a list of decorated WWII veterans elsewhere. Nothing of this sort has been presented. Kavadi carrier 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Many hundreds of thousands of people were awarded many hundreds of medals in many different armies during the Second World War, we are not in the business of cataloguing them. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE SITEI found where glen was a faggot. r we in the business of this??? There is many many war vets who won metals and many more who should have and didn't. i don't give a shit that you can't find it on your little "links," many of these men aren't on the internet nor is a newspaper arkansas from 1945. i didn't say he was RAMBO, but his damn papers say he had 123 confirmed kills. how many damn people did he have to kill? i see other people on the "never bogus" wilkpeter that don't have half the shit. i will go and send deletion for them all. i have the damn metals in a case! they where actually re-org because his org burnt up in a fire. 4 bronze stars, not 2 or 3. but 4!

User has been indef blocked for personal attacks Glen 15:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteWW1 and WW11 vets hero and other wise may not be found on the net or in a newspaper. John Gotti is on the site and so should this 4 time Bronze Star winner! The last thing we need is the CNN saying we cut War Vets off because we said they weren't important and they didn't have their own Web link. Millions of Military records have been misplaced or lost. Stephenjones99 — Stephenjones99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment You are fighting an uphill battle here because you clearly do not understand what Wikipedia is and is not. A good place to help clear up these misconceptions is a page entitled, appropriately enough, "What Wikipedia Is Not". I'd strongly suggest reading it and some of our other policies and guidelines before contributing further (or using sock puppet accounts to conduct personal attacks on administrators).-- IslaySolomon | talk 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Brimba 15:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about I fax you the Legal papers? R i could make some web sites and then he would have a link. I am not a stock puggett? what ever that is, did glen stollery come up with that, nice web site GS, my friend was right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedfordc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 November 2006

• Comment The issue here is not so much whether or not the contents of the article are true, but whether or not the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to deserve an article. So far there is no assertion in the article that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for individuals. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Hoax, fake, destroy, DESTROY, DESTROY! :D --- RockMFR 17:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above GabrielF 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't decide if it's vanity or a hoax, but it damned sure isn't verifiable and that's the final nail in the coffin.--Rosicrucian 17:53, 4 November 2006 (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.