Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone bill


 * 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   redirect to Bill (payment). Despite the...bizarre...nomination, this seems like a valid option. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Telephone bill

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I love you. Stevin speaks (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a novel reason for deletion. Huh? Anywhoo, delete or redirect to Bill (payment). Hairhorn (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Silly article, silly nomination.  Stevin, are you going to ask her to marry you?  There are more romantic places than Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it is enough referenced Rirunmot (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete bizarre junk tacked on to a dicdef. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bill (payment) per above. Nom's reason for deletion is non-existent/completely bizarre and incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean that this NN article should be spared. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 03:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bill (payment) per Doc Strange and despite nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is WP:ILIKEIT a valid deletion rationale? Has it ever been used as a deletion rationale? I see it used for keep arguments, but not delete arguments. Anyway, merge with bill (payment). Nothing makes phone bills more notable than light bills, power bills, or bills for any other utility. Eauhomme (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "ILIKEIT" and "IDONTLIKEIT" are criticisms of a statement made by someone else in favor of keeping or deleting, kind of like "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Essentially, these are a sanitized way of saying "You don't have a good reason, do you."  Generally, WP:ILOVEYOU would not be a good reason for deletion, and I don't think there really is an editor named "Stevin speaks".  I think there's someone out there having a lot of fun watching the discussion that followed a nonsensical nomination.  Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, the nom's only activity has been related to the nomination of this page. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect billinghurst (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bill (payment) per WP:ILOVEYOU. And it's shameful that that's a redlink. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. Note that the topic has massive notability as there are numerous books upon the topic such as this and that and so merits serious attention, not offhand dismissal. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2009 (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.