Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Cillia


 * 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 Procedural close. Already speedy deleted at 01:39 on 18 May 2016 by : (G3: Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Cillia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Allegedly a historic kingdom in Portugal, but there are no sources provided and absolutely none are apparent in the usual internet searches. From all indications this is WP:MADEUP, or a hoax, and in any event there is no indication that it is notable. This was deprodded by the article's creator, but no sources or other responses have been provided in response to the concerns raised by the prod. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as hoax No sources found, and the language of the article approaches the preposterous on close reading. Every section of the article is noteworthy in this regard; there ARE NO SOURCES, and where dates are provided, they're "go-to" dates in European history like 1066 that would jump out of one's brain if one were creating a hoax article (whether or not for the deliberately nefarious purpose of damaging Wikipedia's credibility). Concrete example: the bluelinked purported/hoax language "Cillian" directs to an article regarding the Irish names "Cillian" and "Killian". The fact that the article's creator has done nothing else on WP strongly supports WP:MADEUP as well. This person is really some brand-new scholar of an entirely unprobed, unknown era of well-trod medieval Portuguese history? - Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Templated for speedy deletion as blatant hoax - People in Cillia in Portugal believe in Poseidon? Seriously? To add, even if this was believable somehow, it would be really strange that not only do we not have a page about an autonomous region in a major European country, but that ptwiki doesn't have one either. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You were blunter than I felt comfortable being, and I agree with you completely. I appreciate that you have unwittingly helped me raise this question: Why is it so hard to speedy-delete obvious hoaxes? (I assume this should actually be addressed via some bureaucratic Wikiprocess I'm in the process of identifying—WP:RFC, maybe? I don't know. I've only been here a year and a half, and interpret bureaucratic guidelines for a real-life living, and this has still taken hours to get to nowhere on, so who knows?!) Sometimes, OBVIOUS HOAXES ARE OBVIOUS, and I tag them as such, and I still get my CSD tags deleted with patronizing nastygrams on my talk page from well-meaning non-involved admins because "hoaxes aren't really supposed to be CSDed but really only PRODded," even though the hoaxster can, as here, blithely delete the PROD and force us all to this exercise in lunacy that only makes Wikipedians look silly. But I reckon this is a rant for another time and some other place. Thanks for letting me share.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't feel too comfortable tagging this, but seeing as you advocated speedy delete here, I did so. I agree completely that while this won't be obvious for everyone on the planet, this type of article needs to go ASAP. It does us far more damage to have 7 days of passing readers reading this and considering it plausible but "controversial" because of that pesky AfD/PROD notice they won't click, than to have them stumble on a totally obvious hoax, which they won't believe for a second. Daß Wölf (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of this is true, but I still don't mind filing an AfD first in situations like this, partly just to confirm that I didn't miss something and mostly so that there will be a written record, readable by ordinary editors as well as admins, in the event that someone tries again to introduce a specious topic like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleted as blatant hoax. Thanks to all for their vigilance.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 01:40, 18 May 2016 (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.