Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheaper by the dozen 3

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalballism at it's finest. Article states that it's all rumours, not able to verify any of the information via movie news sites. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As nom. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would speedy it if I could think of a category. Just zis Guy you know? 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Too bad horrible sequals isn't a csd criteria :P --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, contains no verifiable sources. Sliggy 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per good taste.  ;) And per nom. Cigarette 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:29, 26 March 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.