- 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 --JForget 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, 2 ghits. MER-C 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Can't find anything in x-org. Could be a hoax, but certainly not prominent. scope_creep (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, very unlikely there are any references out there. Could be a hoax. Hut 8.5 12:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Actually, 3ghits, 2 of which are Wikipedia. :-) Stwalkerster talk 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete No usable refs, no notability. Tim Ross·talk 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete either hoax or non-notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless several more reliable references can be found. The reference given is pay-for; there is no mention of flowmics in the title or abstract. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (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.