Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspecion of electronic survalence on Trump Campaign

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 blatant hoax (G3). (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspecion of electronic survalence on Trump Campaign

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

Unsourced article that consists of little more than restating the title and asking "is it true?". While the controversy over Trump's claims of Obama's wiretapping might possibly at some point deserve an article, this one contains no usable content and is so misspelled ("Suspecion" and "survalence") and ungrammatical ("surveillance on") that it isn't even of use as a redirect. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing worth saving. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see what purpose it could possibly serve. There is no content and the title is so unlike any potential query that it couldn't be used as a redirect. Mduvekot (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please, make it stop... ansh 666 05:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. This could probably have been prodded rather than taken to AfD. Mortee (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even resemble an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to save in this tabloid headline article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/snow delete. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super Speedy delete for every reason listed. The madness has now infected wikipedia. MiracleMat (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2017 (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.