Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Stuart's Pond

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 Delete as Hoax. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stuart's Pond[edit]

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

This article about a War of 1812 battle seems like a hoax. It was PRODded and then speedied by an editor (those were removed by someone else) with the remark "Search results for 'Battle of Stuart's Pond' seem to be only Wikipedia mirrors and other such sites that read Wikipedia content. Also no results for 'James Fenthswick Stuart'." I agree; even searching for "Stuart's Pond" in GBooks or GScholar returns zero relevant results. I can't find any other evidence for this. GBooks lets you search one of the sources listed in the article (limited preview), but neither "stuart" nor "pond" gets any hits. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant, wild hoax.. The fact that this is not a candidate for CSD and that it escaped PROD makes me question my faith in both. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Needless to say, this supposed battle isn't described by the site included in "External links" either. I'm surprised that this has survived since 29 May 2008! EALacey (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 17 January 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.