Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underquote

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 Early close and speedy delete per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underquote[edit]

nn neologism, article does not indicate it has acheived widespread use or notability, 0 ghits Jons63 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and no references. RJFJR (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references and extremely limited text. No justification for such an article. Lympathy ^Talk 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Unreferenced, Google fails to find any references for anything even vaguely resembling this. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.-- The Anome (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe someone wasted 10 minutes of their life writing this. Unsalvageable. – iride scent 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wasted 10 minutes of my life viewing, researching and replying to the article. Lympathy ^Talk 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than 10 minutes was spent in the development of the underquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.53.213 (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2008 (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.