Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavoured paper


 * 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 Speedy deleted by User:Uncle G as a copyvio (log). BryanG(talk) 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Flavoured paper
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Edible paper does exist and we could use an article about it, but this article is not it. Author removed prod and prod2, so moving debate to AfD. SWAdair 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author(s) seem intent on including these people in the Wikipedia, having edited the October 30 pages as well as creating pages in their own names. Other nonsense such as this has also been added. I'd also suggest possibly Speedy Deleting as pure vandalism, based on those other edits. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the redirection to this page at Flavoured papyrus also needs deleting. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like someone was writing on the paper before eating it. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: YOUR FUCK HEADS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
 * comment: gah. you suck. technicalities suck balls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokilik (talk • contribs)
 * FUCK YOU CRUSTACEAN. Mokilik is 100% right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmool (talk • contribs)
 * Comment, what the hell did I do to you people/person? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as complete bollocks written about what tangentially could be a reasonable subject. It seems this is vandalism, as well, given the eloquent manner in which the case for the opposition is being argued. Byrgenwulf 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should ignore the vandals and look to see whether an article on flavoured paper can be written from sources. There's  which discusses a cigarette paper manufacturer's production of flavoured paper, for starters. Uncle G 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I see no reason Consumed Crustacean should take all the blame.  Tychocat 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per Byrgenwulf. --BrownHairedGirl 11:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, would this get merged into recycling or into a cookbook? -- zero faults   ' '' 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to LSD &mdash; er, I mean delete per all deletion arguments above. Anville 14:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --BobFromBrockley 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an Instruction Manual. No verifiable sources are cited either. Scorpiondollprincess 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While this article probably requires a deletion, or cleanup, this line is hilarious - "You can add candy, pastries, even meat to taste." LOL Xenocidic 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual... or cookbook.  The tone is completely unencyclopedic and the article is in violation of WP:RS and WP:V.  Mokilik and Kelmool, please try to stay cool - if you could explain what makes this product notable or provide some sources, we might be more likely to allow the article to remain, but swearing at editors isn't going to help. Srose  (talk)  17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Copyright violation from this site, just with two names added, and the really weird bits, like munching in class and adding meat. Byrgenwulf 17:34, 2 August 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.
 * 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.