Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GG-Bomb

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 delete. If this goes to WP:DRV then we open the wikipedia cow level. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GG-Bomb

Used {{prod}}, which was reverted by Gg-bomb (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), the creator (!). Playing it safe and taking it here. It appears to be a hoax WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. James084 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily as hoax vandalism if possible. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Oldelpaso 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G1, patent nonsense—tagged. — orioneight (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That makes this article one of the few to exist in all three deletion systems -- prod, AfD, and CSD. That is not a good sign for this article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Today, we heard a terrible cry from the throats of a million nn-bio subjects: OUCH. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "This is not a hoax!" Oh yes it is - {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a... thing with little context and as a nonnotable person, if not even as pseudo-coherent nonsense, depending on if you squint at the article right. Assuming the author is talking about themselves, this isn't a hoax, but let's not bother ourselves finding tons of sources and ve-ree-fy-eng things when we have here what appears to be a prime example of a Nonnotable Bio which certainly doesn't contribute much to the great scheme of things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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.