Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmplz

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 was Dltd SkierRMH (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dmplz

Dmplz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a article that had a prod placed on it, but was removed by the author. I believe it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not for Neologisms. Icestorm815 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - page has no worth and no place on wikipedia. --Neon white (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete A1 Article has little or no context and is simply a shortening of the word dimples. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't know if it is considered a neo, but obvious delete anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't seem an encyclopaedic subject. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is either a nonnotable neologism, article with little/no context, or patent nonsense. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• DLte is a shorter way of saying Delete - Absolutely useless and NN. Wikipedia is not a palce for neologisms made up in school one day. Spawn Man (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dltplz (politely) ;-) unsourced neologism Ohconfucius (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2007 (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.