- 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criteria A11 and G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Iberanunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not in english, delete or move to the German wikipedia Supercell121 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Even translated, it is unsourced and appears to be alternative history, possibly WP:MADEUP. Unless someone has a different reading of this, it might qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A11 (obviously invented) or WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Should I put the CSD template on the article, or just leave it as a AfD discussion?--Supercell121 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- You can try, but admins often won't do a speedy while an AfD is running. Probably easiest to leave it as it is, and use a speedy on the next similar case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Tend to agree it's a hoax or joke, but it clearly does not pass WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as made-up nonsense. GNG? Not even close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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.