Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Hiroshima

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 Speedily deleted as a hoax --Step hen 08:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Hiroshima[edit]

No such treaty exists. Google search showed up only one unrelated result. The page was prodded, but the notice was removed by the creator. Page creator has not come up with a single link to prove its existence (Posted two links on talk page; one gives 'page doesn't exists', while the other is totally unrelated). Welt^anschaunng 05:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. You'd think a brand shiny new treaty would have more going for it than zero relevant news articles. There's a lot of speculation in here as well, and it doesn't help that all of the 'references' provided in the body of the article are external links to Wikipedia articles. -- saberwyn 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Countries habitually classify their non-agression treaties so their future enemies don't know who will/won't come to their aid. This article talks about the treaty like it's an open news item. While NATO and the USSR do stand out as two extraordinary exceptions to the rule, I submit that both alliances classified their agreements with each specific country for exactly this reason. Furthermore, if China signed a non-preemptive treaty with Japan under the current diplomatic climate, and if this had gotten out to the news world, I submit that Asian media outlets would have covered it thoroughly and many pundits would have spoken up. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear hoax. Suharto was out of power before Australia first sent troops into East Timor so it's not even a good hoax. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't make any sense. not real. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree - could find no information. To the nominator - you have gone beyond the call of duty :-) Nice work. Shoessss | Chat 12:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is areally easy one, a clear hoax apparently.--Aldux (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 My suggestion--do it now. Obvious hoax. Blueboy 96 13:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it clearly is a hoax.BWH76 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Better luck next time, Ms. Lynch. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be a next time for her--she's been indefblocked as a vandal-only account. Blueboy 96 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I could not find any sources when doing a search on dogpile.com. Therefore, I agree that this article is a likely hoax. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 25 February 2008 (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.