Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepover theory

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. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepover theory

Pure original research, unverifiable. No references given, no notability asserted. soUmyaSch 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --mtz206 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article even says it is OR. Accurizer 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... per nom.--Isotope23 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yep, it's OR. Delete.-Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In the studio with me tonight I have Anne Elk. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Perceptive for a 14 year old, but ultimately an unremarkable observation. Peter Grey 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Bachrach44 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. Plus the spelling's pretty atrocious for a 14-year-old, wouldn't you say? ekedolphin 22:10, 25 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.