Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwear 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underwear theory

Underwear theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. This appears to be either original research or someone posting their personal essay on Wikipedia. Also, it appears to be unverifiable, and no reliable sources have been cited. SunStar Net^talk 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - smells of WP:NFT too. MER-C 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a personal essay, and not notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as soon as possible: this isn't Cosmopolitan. Kripto 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This should really go to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --SunStar Net^talk 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is "too damn goofy" a reason for deletion? anyway, may be just lifted from a site or something. doesn't seem sustantiated.--Tainter 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hut 8.5 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified and kinda silly. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FRINGE#Guidance - would need extensive referencing. ◄Zahakiel► 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not BJAODN-worthy. Just trash it. JuJube 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not interesting or funny enough for BJAODN. delldot | talk 05:41, 31 January 2007 (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.