- 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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was wp:prodded by User:Friday, then de-prodded by User:81.155.200.168 with no edit summary, and no mention on the talk page. The reason given for prod was "full of original research and bias, but I'm not sure it can/should be fixed. No sources, no indication of significance for this bar." Neutral SeventyThree(Talk) 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable pub. Bucketsofg✐ 04:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsense. Moriori 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN, turgid mess. Bottoms up! RGTraynor 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. DarthVader 07:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of above. -- Tangotango 08:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not of encyclopdaedic notability, and much of it is probably nonsense. Zaxem 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 14:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete randomcrapcruft. a bit pov too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: "Some people are of such low status they are barred from the bottom of the bar." -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 02:02, 8 May 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.