Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original four

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Original four
Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 03:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No doubt that this is vanity. DarthVader 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Jaxl 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unquestionably vanity, and nn vanity at that. Plus the fact that they referenced future events, a no-no. -mysekurity 05:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Four people who think that inventing a collective name for themselves is all it takes for them to be notable. Delete.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is the kind of thing we should be able to speedy. the wub  "?/!"  08:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. Mrendo 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The hopes, the dreams, the naivette, the innocence...it brings an honest, unjaded tear to my eye. Delete for the glaringly obvious reason (vanity) and for making me cry. Geogre 18:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. See the proposals at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I had come across this I would probably have userfied it and deleted the link. It's rather nice but not encyclopedic. Not worth discussion either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 18 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.