Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutrocity

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete (20:10, 13 Jun 2005 Geogre deleted "Nutrocity" (Libel page)). - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nutrocity
No google hits; appears to be a made up word Samw 00:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism, blatant POV ("wack job"), seems to basically be spam for its attached link. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this "wack job" of an article. Mr Bound 02:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't know if there is a speedy delete for a page that seeks to libel a whole class of people rather than just one, but I guess not. This is just the usual petulance. Geogre 03:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn neologism POV. Speedy as unencyclopedic insult fine by me. -- Infrogmation 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a biased article; even if the word exists, the article could be rewritten for a NPOV. --Rschen7754 04:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this ridiculous article. Sasquatch&#08242;&#08596;Talk&#08596;Contributions 05:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be more of an attack on Christian apologetics, and this article has no place here, even if I do agree with the author to a degree. Jamyskis 07:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-encyclopedic -CunningLinguist 07:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as attack page. the wub (talk) 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's gone. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.