Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oages

Oages
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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

Note: This is the first in another batch of VfDs that I've been calling "Lost/unresolved." These are articles that have had VfD boilerplates, and in most cases have the nominator's rationale, which have apparently not been presented to the community for votes. "Lost/unresolved" is a misleading label, so Chris offered the term "widowed," which I like. From now on, I'll refer to these as "Widowed VfDs"&mdash;vfd's without their partner on the VfD page.

At any rate: this is apparently a fictitious fruit made up on a wed forum. Strong delete. Cool Hand Luke  06:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * don't get rid of oages. this is just a ploy by those who can't afford them to rid the world of them.  oages are wonderful! (should be "User:142.165.212.146").


 * Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 09:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Prank, yet another case of one onliner making fun. Geogre 15:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, hehe. Nonsense. Nadavspi | talk 21:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)