Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deudonic War


 * 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. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deudonic War

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like a hoax. Searching via Google and Google Books gives zero related hits for the word Deudonic, searching for the numbers given in the infobox or the names of the commanders gives also zero related hits. If confirmed that this is a hoax, please someone permanently block the creator of this hoax article. Stepopen (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Without some evidence it happened, it needs to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you explain to me exactly what gives you the right to request a permanent block on another user? Shnitzled (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can help us out here and point us to the source of the article you created. The book, the newspaper, the documentary, the journal article or the webpage that is the basis of your information on this war. Regarding your question, why those who damage Wikipedia by creating hoax articles should be blocked should be obvious to you. Stepopen (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well look at you, you been here since only the 15th of May, and yet you still think you can march around the place like you run it, demanding people to be blocked! Get over yourself, you'll only piss even more people off. Shnitzled (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I assume that your (non)-response means that there are no sources and that this article is indeed a hoax. And do not vandalise again my user and my talk page. Stepopen (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to hell, stay there, don't ever make contact with me again. That is my response. You make me slightly sick to my stomach. Shnitzled (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Stepopen (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, you found ANI, would you like a medal? Shnitzled (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Smells like a hoax to me. The details are inconsistent: the text claims that "less than 50 men on each side" were involved, but the infobox says that over a thousand men were on each side; the text says that there were "3 minor battles" in "24 to 48 hours", but the infobox says that there were only two generals, one on each side. (A single general could hardly fight three distinct battles with the same army in the space of 48 hours!) Also, "Deudonic" looks like a takeoff on "Teutonic", which is a term used for the Germans - yet no Germans were involved in this war. No sane historian would use such a confusing name for such a minor war! Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you no imagination, are are you devoid of that as well? The main war lasted between 24-48 hours, those minor battles were unplanned, they happened almost by accident, so no generals would have been there. Shnitzled (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were no generals there, then why are a "Francois Majeus" and "Jose Almada" listed as the commanders? (Never mind, you're blocked so it hardly matters.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have heard of this before, I'm sure of it. Also, Stepopen, stop acting like you are important, you are the sort of person who needs a slap, hard, in the face to teach you your place. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 06:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This editor has not contributed anything since months, and all edits before were related to Shnitzled. Stepopen (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete G3, the only Ghits are Wiki related. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, hoax, no Google hits . --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 08:51, 2 June 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.