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 as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney the Bowl Cut Sloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This doesn't seem to technically fall under the CSD because the article is not about a non-notable person, but rather a non-notable sloth. The references consist entirely of pictures, with the exception of a short Youtube clip of what we are apparently to assume is the sloth in question. The article is generally silly and hoaxish. The only reason I would hesitate to call this a hoax is that hoaxes usually have at least some element of reasonable plausability. --Dynaflow babble 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD G3 vandalism. "Blatant and obvious misinformation". Karenjc 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obviously vandalism. Ottre 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Pure vandalism. I highly doubt that a sloth can become addicted to heroin. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like something they'd need, does it? I can totally understand the poor, lumbering creature's rumored crack problem, though. How else is a sloth supposed to keep up with Will Ferrel? --Dynaflow babble 03:23, 16 February 2009 (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.