Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology

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 deleted G3 by JzG. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not based on reliable sources (or at least, the reliable sources cited do not discuss the supposed topic of the article), and a search does not reveal any that could be used to base an article on this topic on. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Is it too late to do a speedy delete now that this AFD was already started? I think it would qualify ~~under A11. Obviously invented~~ as a hoax, especially taking into consideration its twin article Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology (also at AFD) which is equally incoherent, except about baking soda instead of milk. Google doesn't come up with anything that seems remotely related to either article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) *Updated —PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated Sukuma Calendar, created by the same editor, for speedy deletion, Permstrump, but under G3 as a hoax. I considered A11 for both articles, but it doesn't apply if there is any credible claim of significance. Perhaps there isn't such a claim here - the article is such a mish-mash that it's difficult to tell! Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I thought the author invented the idea, as in it's nonexistent. Now that I'm re-reading the descriptions, I think I meant hoax. —PermStrump(talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not sure this is a hoax and think the editor may well be acting in good faith. That does not change the total lack of valid references so I agree the article does not belong on WP. DeVerm (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2016 (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.