Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracula Luther X

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 vandalism. Having reviewed the edits made by Bulish.cx (talk · contribs), and by xyr previous incarnations as Bulish.org (talk · contribs) and Bulish.net (talk · contribs), none of which have not been vandalism, it is clear that this is hoax vandalism and part of a long-standing pattern of vandalism by this person. Uncle G 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Luther X[edit]

Hoax, neither the actor or any of the movies listed exist TJ Spyke 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. This clearly falls under Criteria for speedy deletion. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a Speedy Delete if it does qualify, which it seems to. TJ Spyke 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Patent nonsense (CSD G1). -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please actually read the page that you have linked to, in particular the part that explains what patent nonsense is not. Uncle G 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not patent nonsense, but rather a hoax which is deleteable, but not speedy deletable. -- Whpq 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Yomangani ^talk 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing as it contains words like blaxploitation and nigger, I suspect this is an attack page which is reason for speedy deletion. Also, If a relatively recent film cannot be tracked down online, it is a proven hoax, and those should be deleted post-haste. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those terms are used in the blaxploitation article, which is why I didn't suggest speedy, but I'm not going to object on the basis of semantics - it obviously has to go, and speedy would be no bad thing. Yomangani ^talk 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy as blatantly racist attack page Fram 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.