Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian bikini

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian bikini[edit]

Delete or merge into bikini with heavy rewrite. Currently pretty nn advertising, IMO. Definetly not worded encyclopedically. Google test gets a lot of hits, but I don't think it's anywhere near notable or different enough to warrant a seperate article. The merge suggestion was reverted by the article's sole writer without discussion. Staxringold 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I still don't know the difference between a Brazilian bikini and a regular bikini. I did notice, though, that the girl in the picture is showing some ribs, and I think she needs a sammich. Delete unless the article can be rewritten to explain what makes Brazilian bikinis unique. --E lkman - ^(talk) 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. is currently complete spam from a bikini merchant. Could be possible to clean up the article, but I'm still not sure that the difference between the subject and a normal bikini is all that great. Probably worth keeping as a redirect, and insertion of a paragraph's material into the bikini article. Kuru ^talk 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertisement. JIP | Talk 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this advertising. Possibly redirect, though unlikely search term. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, then create a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I marked this up as merge with Bikini but as the author of the article doesn't appear to want to do such a thing and there is not enough notable material about the subject to justify a separate article of its own, delete is the order of the day. (aeropagitica) 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elkman --Pal5017 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is there to merge? Henning Makholm 03:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Advertising. Not even very good advertising. Peter Grey 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete its image too. JoshuaZ 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Interesting design --Masssiveego 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising! V i r tualSteve 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Out damn spam out! Nigelthefish 15:43, 20 March 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.