Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha Sha

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 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notabale juvinilia as it stands. Little hope of redemption. At best a cadidate for the wiktionary (sp?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The very definition of WP:NFT. ... discospinster 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NFT. Not exactly a speedy candidate, but I doubt anyone would object... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons above, I wouldn't object to someone speedy deleting this. DVD+ R/W 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 10:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Close to being Patent nonsense. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to nominate this myself yesterday but didn't get round to it. It is borderline speedy - just a load of school junk. SFC9394 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all above. Mangojuice^talk 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utter nonsense.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense and unencyclopaediac. --soUmyaSch 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Why would there be something that has "no particular meaning" be in wikipedia? Out, gone, bye-bye. JBEvans

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.