Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appalucia Militia

: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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Appalucia Militia]]=

:{{la|Appalucia Militia}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appalucia Militia}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Appalucia Militia}})

The only "evidence" that can be found that this group exists is a blog on the page of the band named [http://www.myspace.com/appalucia Appalucia]. The only reference given is to a book about the militias that existed in 1760, long before the Civil War. Smells like a hoax to me. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete - lacks evidence, possible hoax. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete: I couldn't find anything mentioning this "unit" on google or google books. The only hits were to a Myspace page, which is probably created by the creator of this article. Looking at the one source that is listed (there is a brief description on Google Books) it seems to relate to a different militia unit, not the one mentioned in the article, although I wasn't able to view the source fully. Admittedly my search is not all encompassing, but I feel that unless more reliable sources can be added, that this should probably be treated like a hoax. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.