Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poohoo bunneh

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 G1 by RHaworth , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poohoo bunneh

Poohoo bunneh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Complete nonsense. Kill it with FIRE. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense, neither afd nor prod was proper, this should have been a db-nonsense. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Tagged for SD. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional comment I originally prodded it because there's no speedy deletion criteria for neologisms and I thought a prod might be best but I guess WP:CSD#G1 was the best option. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Not just NEO, but COPYVIO... author claims copyright at end (for who knows what reason) Plvekamp (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G1 (as it is being). Ha! (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2008 (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.