Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedroom eyes


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bedroom eyes
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Senordingdong 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Not very well written either. ~ lav-chan @ 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per nom. MER-C 12:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If its badly written, rewrite it. Bad writing is not a valid deletion criterion. In any case this could be significantly expanded into far more than a dictionary entry by showing how the term has entered popular culture in film, popular music etc. --Centauri 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef Bwithh 13:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef There's no real opportunity to expand this past a definition, and WP really isn't the place to do liguistic analysis. eaolson 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Open and shut. JASpencer 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. FairHair 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. I'm giving it 'dustbin eyes'. QuagmireDog 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef "Dustbin eyes" - LOL! --Charlesknight 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pretty much any word or phrase can be expanded into something resembling an encyclopedia article. But, hey, let's not, since that's a waste of everyone's time. Recury 18:16, 25 September 2006 (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.