Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFDLvio


 * 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 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GFDLvio
This seems like a hoax. There are only around 73 Google hits, and most of them seemed to have originated from Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-referential and author failed to include a verb in the last two sentences. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax. It's original research.  An editor made up a word on Wikiquote, and another editor decided to document it on Wikipedia, mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance.  Wikipedia is not for things made up at Wikiquote one day. Delete. Uncle G 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or Merge to Copyright infringement--Xiaon 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why you believe this is a speedy keep candidate, and/or why it should be kept or merged? In my opinion, this should be deleted per Uncle G.  Srose   (talk)  12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NFT. PJM 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. Danny Lilithborne 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cedars 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:55, 18 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.