Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice's Palace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alice's Palace
Probably hoax article, should be speedy deleted. RMS Oceanic 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources. Nardman1 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete potential hoax or speculation. Either way no sources and nothing obvious in a google search. Nuttah68 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article has, correctly, been tagged for speedy deletion. Why are we wasting time looking at it?--Anthony.bradbury 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added the speedy tag after coming to this afd. Nardman1 16:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment It is not a speedy candiodate because it is not covered by any speedy criteria, including Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Nuttah68 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let an admin decide that, hmm? Nardman1 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anyone can contest a speedy. I have and you are out of line replacing it. Nuttah68 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously we are not going to go to war over this; but I quite like {{db-nonsense}}, on the basis of the total lack of any factual back-up to the statements made in the article.--Anthony.bradbury 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the speedy deletion tag. It doesn't seem to me that the article qualifies under any of the criteria. G1 (patent nonsense) specifically states: This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Canderson7 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously we are not going to go to war over this; but I quite like {{db-nonsense}}, on the basis of the total lack of any factual back-up to the statements made in the article.--Anthony.bradbury 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anyone can contest a speedy. I have and you are out of line replacing it. Nuttah68 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let an admin decide that, hmm? Nardman1 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is not a speedy candiodate because it is not covered by any speedy criteria, including Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Nuttah68 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Speedily or not, no verifiable official info has been released. SpikeJones 16:44, 11 February 2007 (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.
