Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten to four

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ten to four

"Religion" of the week here for you folks. Prod and speedy removed previous. Article reads as complete nonsense, no notoritity at all. Wildthing61476 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, actually could have been speedied as patent nonsense. The prod tag was removed by the creator without any explanations. His/her next move was to vandalize this AfD page. I say speedy and block that user. Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NFT and I think WP:HOAX WilyD 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - WP:NOT stuff made up at school one day. - Richfife 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - It is patent nonsense. Mattisse 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It's a bad sign when an article about a religion includes the phrase "The three main believers are..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, nonsensical hoax religion made up one day. It's not incoherent, so I can't really say it's patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete --MECU≈talk 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, WP:BALLS, no chance in hell wherever bad people go in this "religion" this'll survive. --Kinu t/c 00:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the word you are looking for is 4:00 pm. Pascal.Tesson 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete because this article was written by User:10 2 4 yet the article states that "There is not much known about Ten to Four ...." If an editor is close to a subject and creates an article about it, he or she ought to know something about it. We've seen the "it's so mysterious that we don't know much about it" act in other articles, all of which have been deleted. As a second choice, strong delete for all delete reasons specified above. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Article now edited to (fraudulently, and without sources) claim that it's a major religion in Ireland. NawlinWiki 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • no delete* As a resident of the republic of ireland i have seen first-hand this cult. This cult does exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.73.20 (talk • contribs)
  • The above author has only posted in the article and this AfD. Wildthing61476 14:32, 27 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.