Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rennets

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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rennets[edit]

Cute, but a hoax presented as fact. Mattdm 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Hoax. Thryduulf 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Craig Stuntz 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - amusing, but hoax.--JBellis 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as misspelling/plural to rennet, an unrelated, factual article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now redirected. Gdr 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect has been un-redirected). Redirect leaves the hoax open to revival. Mark^{your words} 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is deleted, I will make a redirect and lock it. Let's let this run the full week, though, so there's a proper AFD to point to when it comes time to delete/prevent this hoax in the future. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE As i have said numerous times- Rennet is a media term- the creature it describes, Cricetus auratus, are real creatures, They are not Friggin Syrian hamsters like everyone thinks, thats Mesocricetus auratus!!! Look it up before you delete my article!!!!Devil in disguise 14:57, 3 February 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.