Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flamer's Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was BJAODN/delete. Ingoolemo talk 23:18, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
[edit] Flamer's Bible
Possibly funny (how would I know) but definitely original research. BJAODN if you like, but delete Denni☯ 02:22, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- BJAODN. Nonencyclopedic, but rotfl funny. -- BD2412 talk 02:41, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- Clearly, the author, if he really exists, is a member of a vast conspiracy of delusional trolls and, ipso facto, should be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or at least forced to eat his mother's over-boiled vegetables. Or else just Delete. DS1953 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not funny enough for BJAODN though. JamesBurns 08:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN, but just marginally. I had a giggle anyway. Jamyskis 09:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not encyclopedic, text dump. (Appears a number of places on Internet, such as [1].) Delete, a BJAODN candidate. - Mike Rosoft 09:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- heh. BJAODN at most. jglc | t | c 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN. --Carnildo 21:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OMG, how funny. BJAODN. Hermione1980 23:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unencyclopedic and appears copied from somewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP IT. Flaming is long Internet tradition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.68.73 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.