Deletion of Azia

Comment: per , "so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question".  The claim that this is completely unsourced is blatantly false as the reference section lists two books about the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: I am neutral on whether this topic is notable enough for an article (a quick Googling brought up the same book-length source from which this article's information was apparently "culled", but its reliability/usability is another matter), but I highly suspect, based partly on the use of the word "culled" and partly on the disastrously poor grammar of some segments and the relative presentability of others, that this article may have been one big  since its first edit, and therefore may meet . Alternatively, the use of quotes around "culled" may imply that the article text was actually ripped from another source that used that wording, and our article's creator didn't know what to make of it and took the citation word-for-word, which would still make the whole text a copyvio. I do not have access to the two sources from which this text was apparently "culled", but if anyone does their assistance would be appreciated. I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright violations, which is why I say weak delete in this case. Anyway, there's not much that can be preserved in the page (if no one has access to source from which it was "culled" then we can't actually verify it, and the original draft up to my edit yesterday was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azia&diff=861097885&oldid=861075233 blatantly promotional), and the title, which is a common-enough misspelling of Asia (and the ''correct'' spelling of Asia in various languages) should almost certainly redirect to an unrelated article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO||WP:G12)