Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dang caseadilla


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dang caseadilla

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Topic is not encyclopedic, too narrow, and unlikely to ever become a full Wikipedia article. Mr. Darcy talk 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons self-evident. JuJube (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a contested prod. --Call me Bubba (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - or even redirect to Napoleon Dynamite if the closing admin is feeling adventurous enough. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ' The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Patent original research. Wily D 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. Totally uncited analysis of importance and meaning of a single phrase of dialog. If it's really that important, there will be oodles of RS from film critics as the film itself is quite popular. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (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.