- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, no relevant Googles ( Souls Of Mischief ), not in OED Dlyons493 Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Gaff talk 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, apparent hoax. Kappa 05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ganymead 06:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Banes 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Optichan 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Jesse 18:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am reluctant to use a google test as the be all end all; however, a social occurrence of such purported significance would have more google appearances. If, however, the author can provide some form of substantiation, I would support keeping the article. Without any such substantiation, I have no reason to believe that the article is not pure fiction. Cool3 04:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Haon 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. If not in OED, that confirms it. Not in Merriam-Webster either. A somewhat amusing hoax. - Sensor 02:48, 20 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.