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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was that it be speedy-deleted. James F.(talk) 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
This arbitration case has not been accepted or reopened by the arbitration comittee, so the page should never have been made in the first place. I can't understand why it is still here. Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
fine, let it go then, you may as well speedy the thing, I don't the think the creator will fight you on it, I didn't know that there was an arbcom when I first made it, and obviously didn't bother to finsih it, once I found out that there was--Bah' 20:38, 7 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.