The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
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