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 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John A. Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article claims:

Sir John A. Hicks (May 30, 1956 – ) is one of the most important and influential economists and investment bankers of the twentieth century. He was knighted in 2004.

I can find no evidence to support any of these claims and know that he in no way could be described as one of the most important and influential economists of the twentieth century(Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak delete He does not count as a notable economist. Perhaps he does as a businessman if anyone can find references. I couldn't. But I assume he got knbighted for some reason of some sort, DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. The See also section seems to have him confused with Sir John Richard Hicks. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am reluctant to show a lack of AGF, but I have to challenge the alleged knighthood. I could not find it in The London Gazette anywhere in 2004. Admittedly it is not the easiest site to search but I tried the site with the aid of Google also (which found Hicks's being knighted all the way back to 1683, but sadly, not this one). If the person is genuinely knighted then a reference to the exact issue of the Gazette should be possible. SpinningSpark 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on all of the information presented here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources backing the article's claims can be found. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google reveals two links to wikipedia, [1] [2], a link to a site which has pulled information off wikipedia [3] and some reference.com links that are not relevant at all to the subject [4] [5] [6] . We have no inkling of any reliable sources. Also, article looks like a suspicious clone of John Hicks (i.e. most influential economists). If this individual was one of the most influential economists, perhaps we'd have a reliable sources such as John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, etc. Generally, notable economists tend to be well published. Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete -- This looks hoaxy. He is claiemd to have eben knighted in 2004, but I have checked both honours lists (see links from honours lists and he does not appear. The article is very hazy about his career. He worked for a bank from age 16 and then for various companies including KOMOSJ, only going aged 40 to London University (college not stated - but it is a series of largely independent colleges) then to another university, presumably for a higher degree until 2002 (age 46). The article was created by a user komosj, who has only edited this aarticle and a related dab article. This suggests a conflect of interest. It is not even a clone of John Hicks, but may be an attempt to freeload on his reputation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 15 November 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.