- 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Neologism. ViridaeTalk 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's also riddled with OR. Pat Payne 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NEO, WP:OR, the references are classic. --Kinu t/c 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and someone really should teach the author what "polygamous" means. BigHaz 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Erechtheus 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above rhmoore 06:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete stupid. Danny Lilithborne 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Musaabdulrashid 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete per all above Lurker haver 09:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Please! WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:VSCA. Thε Halo Θ 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, too bad this cannot be speedily deleted. Yamaguchi先生 08:54, 17 August 2006 (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.