Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10-0-11 0-0 by 0-2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but I'm going to redirect, just in case :). humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 02:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

10-0-11 0-0 by 0-2
Delete. Way too crufty, and unlikely ever to be searched for. -- BD2412 talk 15:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. Gwk 15:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The information is already on the Gallifrey page.--GingerM 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As all above. KeithD 16:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --KFP 16:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - fancruft JoJan 18:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's almost unfortunate that this has to be deleted, because I think it deserves some sort of fancruft award. I've seen a lot of cruft in my time, but this has got to be about the cruftiest ever. That's a delete vote, by the way. -R. fiend 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no need for an article on such a minor detail. Having it on Gallifrey where it is already is good enough. - Mgm|(talk) 20:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gallifrey --Tim Pope 21:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I almost never vote to delete, but I agree with R. field. I think this is the cruftiest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia.--Arcadian 23:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gallifrey. I actually made this one :( But yes, go on, I suppose I was just eager to start contributing. It is kinda stupid. But I think redirection would be best.--Codenamecuckoo 11:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.