The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. -- Joann e B 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I give up - you are too good for me.
I was the original writer of the article. It was all a hoax. Congratulations to the nerds that live and breathe on Wikipedia who solved the 'crime'; you have done well young padawans. However, there was some truth in the article - very disjointed, warped truth, but truth nonetheless. It took you months to figure it out though it was a shamble though!
I claim responsibility for the false signatures and the citied texts that were just picked at random so that you would have to look them up at a library. I can guarantee that I won't be wasting my time writing bogus articles again. I am constantly using Wikipedia for study so it would be appreciated if my IP wasn't blocked for this harmless joke, and I can quote users who claimed that debunking this was 'fun'.
Top notch work to the fellow who picked up on the Notlob/Bolton comparison.
Lawrence Wallace, 10:44 PM, 14/5/06
There is evidence that the claim to having invented jeweled watches may be a hoax, without this claim the man is not notable. Owning a storefront is not notable. Inventing jeweled watches is. However, after a bit of Googling, I'm not sure if this isn't a hoax. There is nothing on Google to suggest that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches except for this Wikipedia article. The man himself appears to be have been real. However, there is no mention on that website of a son, George Jr. Further evidence... after perusing the article history, the claim that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches didn't get added until AFTER Fang Ai Li raised the question of notability. It's very possible that someone added it in order to deflect her challenge.-- Richard 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD was 'orphaned', so listing now. -- Joann e B 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep unless hoax demonstrated; Vote changed to delete below This may or may not be a hoax. There's certainly some specific detail (address etc) in the article, and three sources. It's certainly possible to prove/disprove the validity of the sources, at the least. I don't think this should be deleted without the three sources being checked, and I certainly appreciate
JoanneB's efforts in checking one of them (knowing which one may assist other editors). To quote the article:
The story so far. . . . . The article is created with facts matching a cemetery website, citing two books, one with no apparent ref to any Harbottle. A week later a son is added with a story about his deportation to England and a crime at Notlob. (If this is the man then he would have been 76 at the time.) A few months on and someone questions GH's notability. Notlob is changed to Bolton, and a claim that GH invented jewel gears in watches is added, even though this invention had existed for more than 100 years before his birth. The same editor removes the notability query tag. A week later and the deportation story is changed. Next a claim about George/georging/criminal slang is added (no support in OED). Another book is added to the references, again with no mention of Harbottle. During this later stage of editing, fake signatures supporting the claim to notability are added to the talk page . . . . . -- HJMG 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
{{gift}}
because I now see this article as such. This hoax has been nicely crafted so that the research required to debunk it can be seen as fun in a perverse sort of way. For example, has anybody noticed that "Notlob" is "Bolton" spelled backwards? It's almost as if we had an eccentric uncle laying out a puzzle for us to solve. Do we get a treat when we're done?Yes, yes, I know it's really not the sort of thing we want happening in Wikipedia. Not that we can condone or encourage this kind of thing and we must, of course, delete the little beastie now but, at least, the hoaxsters have had their fun and hopefully so have we. Take it in stride, we've been had. Happy editing to you all. -- Richard 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. -- Joann e B 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I give up - you are too good for me.
I was the original writer of the article. It was all a hoax. Congratulations to the nerds that live and breathe on Wikipedia who solved the 'crime'; you have done well young padawans. However, there was some truth in the article - very disjointed, warped truth, but truth nonetheless. It took you months to figure it out though it was a shamble though!
I claim responsibility for the false signatures and the citied texts that were just picked at random so that you would have to look them up at a library. I can guarantee that I won't be wasting my time writing bogus articles again. I am constantly using Wikipedia for study so it would be appreciated if my IP wasn't blocked for this harmless joke, and I can quote users who claimed that debunking this was 'fun'.
Top notch work to the fellow who picked up on the Notlob/Bolton comparison.
Lawrence Wallace, 10:44 PM, 14/5/06
There is evidence that the claim to having invented jeweled watches may be a hoax, without this claim the man is not notable. Owning a storefront is not notable. Inventing jeweled watches is. However, after a bit of Googling, I'm not sure if this isn't a hoax. There is nothing on Google to suggest that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches except for this Wikipedia article. The man himself appears to be have been real. However, there is no mention on that website of a son, George Jr. Further evidence... after perusing the article history, the claim that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches didn't get added until AFTER Fang Ai Li raised the question of notability. It's very possible that someone added it in order to deflect her challenge.-- Richard 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD was 'orphaned', so listing now. -- Joann e B 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep unless hoax demonstrated; Vote changed to delete below This may or may not be a hoax. There's certainly some specific detail (address etc) in the article, and three sources. It's certainly possible to prove/disprove the validity of the sources, at the least. I don't think this should be deleted without the three sources being checked, and I certainly appreciate
JoanneB's efforts in checking one of them (knowing which one may assist other editors). To quote the article:
The story so far. . . . . The article is created with facts matching a cemetery website, citing two books, one with no apparent ref to any Harbottle. A week later a son is added with a story about his deportation to England and a crime at Notlob. (If this is the man then he would have been 76 at the time.) A few months on and someone questions GH's notability. Notlob is changed to Bolton, and a claim that GH invented jewel gears in watches is added, even though this invention had existed for more than 100 years before his birth. The same editor removes the notability query tag. A week later and the deportation story is changed. Next a claim about George/georging/criminal slang is added (no support in OED). Another book is added to the references, again with no mention of Harbottle. During this later stage of editing, fake signatures supporting the claim to notability are added to the talk page . . . . . -- HJMG 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
{{gift}}
because I now see this article as such. This hoax has been nicely crafted so that the research required to debunk it can be seen as fun in a perverse sort of way. For example, has anybody noticed that "Notlob" is "Bolton" spelled backwards? It's almost as if we had an eccentric uncle laying out a puzzle for us to solve. Do we get a treat when we're done?Yes, yes, I know it's really not the sort of thing we want happening in Wikipedia. Not that we can condone or encourage this kind of thing and we must, of course, delete the little beastie now but, at least, the hoaxsters have had their fun and hopefully so have we. Take it in stride, we've been had. Happy editing to you all. -- Richard 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply