Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order Of The Disminishing Light
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Order Of The Disminishing Light
Delete, there is no way such thing can exist, just run a search for it. (preceding unsigned comment by Aldus 91 (talk • contribs) ), who deleted all content from the article before posting the AfdD. He has also been editing The Order Of The Diminishing Light, which has substantially the same contents that this article had. - Dalbury 00:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Is that because of the spelling error? The Order Of The Diminishing Light might produce more search results. And please sign your nominations using ~~~~ as the instructions ask you to. Thanks! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Also notice that the user who posted the AfD in the article had just deleted all the content of the article. - Dalbury 00:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have restored the text, but do feel that this is both WP:VAIN and an uncommon misspelling, so should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both spellings as forum/webcruft. --Aquillion 00:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I haven't voted yet. Delete - Dalbury 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. *drew 04:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both The Order Of The Disminishing Light and The Order Of The Diminishing Light on grounds of vanity, unencylopedic and nn. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The Order Of The Diminishing Light hasn't been nominated, yet. I don't think I want to nominate it. I do think, at this point, it deserves its own discussion. - Dalbury 18:53, 5 November 2005 (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.
