Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funender
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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Funender
Looks like a made up word. Lots of google hits but none seem to be about this meaning. Tango 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Since it seems to be about an actual person, and doesn't assert the notability of that person, it could be speedied. It definitely should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no references. Tyrenius 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Incidentally, I think the reference to a person is just the result of a poorly written "for instance". PJM 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, it's about a real specific person, probably someone with the internet nickname "funender". Note in particular the part that says "When he created that name he knew then that something special was going to come out of it a long time ago. This was way before he even thought about creating a website." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you mean. PJM 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, it's about a real specific person, probably someone with the internet nickname "funender". Note in particular the part that says "When he created that name he knew then that something special was going to come out of it a long time ago. This was way before he even thought about creating a website." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or even speedy per nom --Deville (Talk) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete this is obviously vandalism. - Phorque (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Vandalism requires malice - this is just vainity by the looks of it. --Tango 16:08, 29 April 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.
