Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biddaling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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(?!?) 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biddaling

I biddal this article and request that it be deleted. "Biddlephon" does not return any Google results. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ridiculosity that is utterly, totally and completely eternally and foreverly unverifiable from anything coming nearly close to nearing an approach to a reliable source. -Splashtalk 00:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy if possible. Utter rubbish. ♠DanMS 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lol, it's still funny though. Lord Of Ketchup 20:34, October 26 2005
  • Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. Not funny enough for BJAODN, if you ask me. MCB 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Flapdragon 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedier the better. agree w/ nom&above.—Gaff ταλκ 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Gives book as further reading, that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's filled with disparaging remarks and POV. Should have been a speedy. PJM 12:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above (well, except that it's funny). Janet13 14:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as spurious and offensively written. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable. Google search returns only three hits and suggests that the query is misspelled. --TantalumTelluride 20:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absurd. Newyorktimescrossword 04:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:04, 28 October 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.