Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastleigh


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Beastleigh

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Unverifiable neologism with no sources, is described in the article itself as something made up in school one day. -- MisterHand 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. It is also WP:NONSENSE. --Evb-wiki 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it's not patent nonsense. As far as I can tell, there is no speedy deletion criteria for an article of this sort. -- MisterHand 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading it again, not only do I still believe it is complete bollocks, I believe it is vandalizim. --Evb-wiki 14:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G1 with apologies to MisterHand. This is clearly nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NFT. Yechiel Man  14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. nonsense as stated.--Arthana 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete totally incomprehensible. DarkAudit 14:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:NONSENSE, "Incompetent and/or immature material" (which this clearly is) is not considered "patent nonsense". Last time I tried to speedy delete an article like this with I got chided because it wasn't "patent nonsense". Damned if I do, damned if I don't. -- MisterHand 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete It's just a bunch of junk. -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per everyone else! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom, please make this link red once more. RFerreira 06:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete nonsense is a nice way of putting it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete! "it currently possesses no litertature or language advances, and infact deliberatly impairs good use of the English language as a whole." ??????--Blueboy96 19:26, 14 June 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.