Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principality of Shaneland

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Principality of Shaneland

Nonsense, hoax article. Only reason why it wasn't speedied is the fact there's an image that also needs to be deleted, plus it seems several different users are contributing to this 23skidoo 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• An article of no merit even as a hoax and should be deleted asap Seod
• Speedy Delete. Good googly moogly!--Esprit15d 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not request speedy deletion unless an article satisfies one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe it does. But due to the image, plus the fact that it appears several different users (one of whom tried to blank this AFD) appear to be contributing to this, I felt it important to call attention to both this article and those involved via AFD rather than deleting the article outright as I could have done. 23skidoo 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it does too. It is both nonsense and a vanity (and there's an argument for vandalism).--Esprit15d 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Your belief is wrong. Nonsense is not a speedy deletion criterion. Please refresh your memory of the criteria. Uncle G 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity / nn "micronation" / hoax. Kusma (討論) 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• This arcticle is fine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill33487 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, patent nonsense. Gazpacho 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• i think that this article is great and it should not be deleted. i think people should see this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awild4 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 January 2006
• Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Uncle G, don't you recognise nonsense as a CSD any more? -- RHaworth 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense has never been a criterion for speedy deletion. Nonsense is not the same as patent nonsense, and only the latter is speedily deletable. Please refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, where what it does not cover is made clear. This article is not patent nonsense. Please do not abuse the patent nonsense speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See - Gazpacho thinks it's patent nonsense. If I had found it with any speedy tag even {{delete}}, I would have deleted it - and I bet no-one would have complained. -- RHaworth 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Gazpacho is wrong, as simply reading the article (and the fact that one can read and make sense of it) attests. That the patent nonsense criterion is abused, or not understood, doesn't make things that are not patent nonsense are speedily deletable as patent nonsense. Uncle G 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Delete the images too. -- Krash 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, irrelevant article. --COA 19:50, 20 January 2006 (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.