Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonuva

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. Sango123 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonuva

Hmmm, interesting, however, most probably original research, or a dicdef. Neither of which belong on the encyclopedia. In the case that the article is retained, my idea would be to add it to the son of a bitch article, or any related one. OMEN 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:WINAD, and even if it were, this doesn't seem particularly useful. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nom has got it right. Tyrenius 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no content. Ste4k 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm amused, but at best it's a dictionary definition ... BigDT 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I can't believe this wasn't speedied for nonsense. --NMChico24 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you have the wrong idea of what patent nonsense is. Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and familiarize yourself with what actually falls within the remit of the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• This is a dictionary article placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There appears to be no scope for transforming this into an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/event/thing. (The concept is, of course, son.) Delete. Uncle G 14:57, 4 July 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.