Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sea Beast

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. Harryboyles 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Beast

Sea Beast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Obviously invented subject. Peter O. (Talk) 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy deletion when it was a few nonsense lines, I see nothing has really changed. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as evident WP:HOAX *Speedy Delete - WP:NFT. Original author took down the AfD notice. Always a good sign. Would post a warning to his talk page, but can't recall the template for removing an AfD notice. Upon further consideration, this really should be speedied under a slightly liberal reading of G1 (patent nonsense) As the article changes, so does my rationale. A Google search for "'Nigel Pemberton'" returns very few hits, none of which seem to be a professor at NYU, and "'Nigel Pemberton' + 'Sea Beast'" returns zilch. Amazon.com returns nothing useful. --Action Jackson IV 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry it looked like nonsense, i was updating it piecemeal, ill take your advice about the preview function —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvw204 (talk • contribs)

• Delete, as either WP:HOAX, or something instantly created. As it stands, the article qualifies as speedy delete as it's empty. --Sigma 7 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a repost of an already speedy-deleted page. Feeeshboy 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion logs show this page has been speedy-deleted at the following time indexes:

22:11, 22 March 2007

19:39, 22 March 2007

05:27, 22 March 2007

also, note that this page was not blank when it was originally speedied, but contained a whole lot of fanciful information about the supposed creature's taxonomy and behavior, as well as a silly picture. Feeeshboy 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the author's most recent edit blanked the page. Speedy is probably correct. --Sigma 7 00:01, 23 March 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.