Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Hass


 * 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 as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A. Hass

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this hoax. Decoratrix 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can see why Carolfrog did not include a reason for deletion. Article is totally a hoax and should not be considered credible under any circumstances.  User: (talk • contribs • count ) 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator's Comment. You guys are speedy.  I forgot to include my reason, but had an edit conflict, so here it is: This article is likely a hoax.  "Hass" is a type of avocado, which may be related to the "salsa" line.  The other apparent jokes in the text don't bode well for it being a legitimate item of folklore, either.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that A Hass is probably someone's friend from Ontario, note the last phrase in the article, and he uses those terms "bad news bears" and "nancy pants" frequently so they thought it would be funny. Gave me a good laugh but not supposed to be on Wikipedia. User: (talk • contribs • count ) 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as nonsense. The creator of the article has a warning on his talk page for creating the nonsense article, so I don't think this one is any more verifiable.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Please put this in the correct place so it can be deleted now, instead of in a week. KP Botany 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria for speedy deletion specifically exclude hoaxes. The assertion of folklore status put it outside patent nonsense (G1), to my mind.  But I would not object to an administrative snowball close.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, well, people can assert anything. Still, I see your point, and can't take issue with your being careful.  KP Botany 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - the criteria may preclude hoaxes, but this is just utter nonsense, and that *does* fall under speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 31 May 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.