- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not widely used neologism, rejected speedy deletion under G3, it isn't vandalism Pattont/c 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly not an encyclopedia article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:SNOW - might not be vandalism, but it's certainly nonsense. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete, part of a pattern of vandalism by this user, and his sock user:flojipoj Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment, 1 article may not be vandalism, but a pattern of at least 5 ( Bloof, Flojipoj, Maksist, Klonijo, Raloy ) sure looks like vandalism to me, which was why these article were all tagged as vandalism by me. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call. The user has already been blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry, so I'd like to motion that we delete both of these articles currently clogging the AfD discussions. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there may be a 3rd member of this set, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plamf appears to fit the pattern. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (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.