- 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. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this term is of significant value or is in widespread use. If so, article needs significant cleaning CPAScott 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable phenomenon in the life of unspecified number of teeners from nobody knows where. term not in wide use. --Svartalf 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as this page doesn't even seem serious. --FeldBum 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 6 google hits. No sources. WP:NFT. --Porqin 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom -- Whpq 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Avi 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest this was CSDable as nonsense, failing that, suggest a speedy close as Delete per other commenters... ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I was tempted to make good on my RfA response to your question, Lar, I don't think this is quite patent nonsense and would like to start off with a more strawberry cream color. I removed a speedy tag from it as there was an active AfD underway. That said, I would be fine if this were speedy closed as Delete. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at it and it seemed nonsensical to me. but on reflection I can see how maybe it might not be COMPLETELY nonsensical maybe... no worries in any case. :) ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 6 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.