Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"james" sketch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was speedy delete. Sango123 (e) 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy for being a hoax:
hoax, see also Yuusuke Santamaria
- Delete unless verified. RN 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete stupid hoax. Devotchka 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems to be not useful even if sourced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuusuke Santamaria. Kusma (討論) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Why 2 deletion tags? — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete
patent nonsensewell pretty close. I didn't make much sense of it. Maybe it was lack of context but it seemed a bit like a stream of consciousness than anything else. I can go with poorly written hoax though. --Nick Y. 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- It is not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, and being a suspected hoax is not a speedy deletion criterion, and that's a Good Thing. Kusma (討論) 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense or hoax. Not even worth of BJOADNification. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even worth of BJAODNification. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Too many problems with this article to count. --Hezzy 00:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.