Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bermaga


 * 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 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bermaga

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is an article is original research and its content is non-notable. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You didn't need to AFD this. PROD hasn't been contested. Speedy delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't for stuff made up in school one day. --GreenJoe 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, but there is no valid reason to speedy delete this. if reliable sources can be found to document the widespread use of the term, then it would be worth keeping. DES (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Made up crap.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Brings up a few thousand google hits (no mean feat considering there aren't that many Star Trek boards intact nowadays). It is also used by Star Trek cast members. It's not "made up", and is no less notable than any other Star Trek term on Wikipedia. --Twicedelay 09:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this person is a new voter. GreenJoe 15:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used to be User:Sdet. I created the article.--Twicedelay 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are about 3000 G'hits, none appear to have any expertise on the subject. --GreenJoe 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a neo -- Whpq 21:02, 6 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.