Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiefucks

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 DELETED by User:Sam Korn as nonsense (and then speedied two more times after being recreated twice.) Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indiefucks[edit]

Livejournal communities tend to be less than notable. This one is no exception. Content is obviously unencyclopedic, and I think it's fair to say that there's no hope of salvaging anything from this one. -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and the article is badly done as it is dr.alf 13:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN vanitycruft. Borders on candidate for G1 speedy as unsalvagely incoherent/patent nonsense. - Sensor 13:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Del. per nom. encephalon 14:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it just got speedied. - Sensor 21:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twice. The version I saw when voting was not WP:PN. It was later edited/vandalized, and a speedy tag stuck on it by an editor. SD'd, recreated as nonsense, SD'd again. encephalon 21:31, 5 November 2005 (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.