Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Democratic Liberal Party

I believe this is a complete fiction. -- Jmabel 07:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC) Deleting, per author; see User_talk:RickK. Mikkalai 04:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is one of User:El Coronado creations. Mikkalai 08:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: More misuse of Wikipedia. Geogre 14:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! Can't prove it's fiction, therefore it must stay. -- Crevaner 20:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, "can't prove it's fiction" isn't the burden of proof necessary for these things -- can prove it's not fiction is what we're after here, and that proof hasn't been met. Delete. Bearcat 23:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Eh what, Crevaner? That's essentially a license to add any nonsense one wants to the Wikipedia, leaving unfortunate Wikipedians like you and I the burden of sorting out whether or not the articles are even true.  That's a terrible criterion for keeping.  (Of course, that's what were doing now anyway!)  --Ardonik.talk 02:57, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Innocent until proven guilty is not the WP way. Articles must meet minimum standards for inclusion. Davodd 07:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, Crevaner, perhaps you would be interested in my article orthogonal is the True Pope and Holy Roman Emperor. I mean, you can't prove it's fiction, right? -- orthogonal 09:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only Google hits are on Wikipedia knock-offs and every single one originated with El Coronado. Spurious, irritating nonsense left by a troll.  Antandrus 20:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's never a good sign when the only hits for a so-called political party are from Wikipedia clones. Demand proof from User:El Coronado of existence (to say nothing of notability), and delete if no information is forthcoming.  --Ardonik.talk 02:57, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one don't see a need to keep this debate open longer. I'd like to speedy-delete this (and all other material by User:El Coronado). In the very unlikely case that he can justify some of this, we can always restore it, but every day we keep this material in Wikipedia it's like the 13th strike of the clock: it casts doubt on the other 12. If no one objects here in the next 8 hours or so, I will probably do this. -- Jmabel 07:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Process, Jmabel. Better it gets deleted in a correct manner than quickly but incorrectly; doing this the right way gives a better chance it stays dead. But you are certainly in your rights to slap a great big "disputed" tag on every article. -- orthogonal 09:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll abide by that objection, but where (if anywhere) does it say that the full 5 days has to play out if it has become clear that material is nonsense? This seems to me to be an invitation to trolls to put nonsense in Wikipedia knowing it will take us five days to delete it. -- Jmabel 17:50, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Which is a valid point. Perhaps we need to de-link or move listed stuff, as we do with copy-vios? I agree, this stuff stinks to high heaven. I can only hope that the VfD and the disputed noticed warn any readers. -- orthogonal 18:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- orthogonal 09:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. More Coronado hoax junk.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. G Rutter 08:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Orthogonal, but I have already dubbed User:Ilyanep as Pope C. Cola, Spiritual Leader of All That Is Wiki. Nonsense?  Of course!  So's the article!  Make it go. - Lucky 6.9 03:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What? How on earth can all of those people belong to the same party? This article is utter fiction! [[User:DO'Neil|DO'&#1048;eil]] 21:12, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)