Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horrible


 * 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 delete. JERRY talk contribs 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrible

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is essentially a dictionary definition followed by original research. I can't see the potential in creating an encyclopedic article about such a broad and subjective topic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Jfire (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, dicdef. Lankiveil (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:NOT. The page probably also meets the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:NONSENSE -- Rustam 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, any reasonable person can make sense of it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If onomatapeia is a word defined as it sounds, then what is the word for an article with a titl ... never mind. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I call neo on this one! Oh, and Delete.  Ψν Psinu 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above and per common sense. Wikipedia is not for bad performance art. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it reads like a bad Uncyclopedia article Doc Strange (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete as nonsense, OR, expansion on a dicdef.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:31, 31 December 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.