Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/64-iber Great Cannon


 * 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 per discussion below and WP:SNOWBALL

64-iber Great Cannon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article title is idiosyncratic, and appears exactly once on the Internet; the article Dardanelles Gun already exists to deal with this topic; article created as first edit by user that then proceeded to vandalism The Anome (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax/OR/fork of Dardanelles Gun. Andrea105 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the ' iber' should probably be ' lber' as in pounder (lb. weight) ie. 64 pounder cannon. Theres are more 'hits' on "64 lber Cannon" eg. Mostly from the 'Total War' computer wargaming series. It's also being picked up by other websites that 'borrow' from Wikipedia ie.Warsearch, 'medbib' and 'tutorgig' if we don't stop it here it will only help spread dubious information. The Garrochista 'article' from the same 'editor' also needs looking at.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete ASAP Buckshot06 (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE ASAP as per my comments. Vandal, unecessary, nb. this was really their 2nd edit. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - plain nonsense.--Brunnian (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2009 (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.