Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Cleavage
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 delete. — FireFox (UTC) 21:02, 27 May '06
Australian Cleavage[edit]
Completely nn neologism. 3 Google hits, one of which is Wikipedia. Crystallina 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hi-yo. · rodii · 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 3g --Chaser (T) 02:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even worth BJAODN. -- Kicking222 02:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable neologism. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that make me Anti-Australian? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: what were you commenting on? Ansell Review my progress! 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just kidding- I don't think it has anything really to do with Australia, but it was listed there. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats okay :) It does seem to reference australia reasonably clearly, in concept, if not by country per se. Ansell Review my progress! 05:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just kidding- I don't think it has anything really to do with Australia, but it was listed there. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: what were you commenting on? Ansell Review my progress! 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that make me Anti-Australian? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, however, I think it is well worth being put on BJAODN, as an australian that is. Ansell Review my progress! 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Longhair 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - do I have to give a reason for this?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this movie isn't real at all eithger RoF 04:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic article --Starionwolf 04:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as protologism. jgp 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but by all means feel free to add it to the Urban Dictionary. -MrFizyx 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unencyclopædic article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO Ydam 09:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete when I saw the title I thought it was a magazine, like American Breast Enthusiast from The Simpsons! --Canley 09:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Move to BJAODN. MyNameIsNotBob 10:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Familiar with the concept, unsure why a description belongs here. Colonel Tom 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. digital_me(t/c) 15:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Roisterer 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with cleavage which needs a boost. Ghosts&empties 17:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Terlob 07:52, 27 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.