Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smug

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. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smug

dicdef plus POV foolishness GTBacchus 10:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per GTBacchus Just zis Guy, you know? 10:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not that I don't agree!--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly the whole point of this article is not to define smug but to make a POV statement about the Chelsea Football Club. ♠DanMS 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (and as far as I'm aware it's a POV and erroneous statement. They haven't got as smug as supporters of certain other teams in the North West of England just yet). Tonywalton  | Talk 16:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, will never be more than a dictdef, and Wiktionary already has a better one. —Cryptic (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this page does nothing, they can find another place to talk about the Chelsea Football Club and as Cryptic stated, smug should be in the dictionary not the encyclopedia. debdebtig
• Delete: That page is completely invalid. Triddle 03:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - POV, dicdef, not encylopedic.--MacRusgail 19:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with above. Should be in dictionary. --Mashford 00:31, 22 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.