Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabugram

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 speedy delete by Pilotguy as nonsense. --Wafulz 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabugram

Sabugram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No unique Google hits, obvious violation of WP:NFT. Quarma 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sounds like something some kid drew while bored. TJ Spyke 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. - Tutmosis 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. --Hyperbole 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, WP:NFT. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete A hackneyed attempt to make the Dos Equis label into a counterculture emblem is not notable. Caknuck 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a neologism, and it's also unverifiable too. There is nothing to indicate that it's notable in any way either. --SunStar Net^talk 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete obviously non-notable. Violates WP:NEO, WP:CITE, WP:NOTE, and WP:NFT. The author couldn't even be bothered to fire up Microsoft Paint for this? I'd be very tempted to go with speedy delete under CSD:G1 - wtfunkymonkey 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense, little context. One ghit for this nn neologism, the WP article. Tubezone 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete definitely, non-sense padded by no context. TSO1D 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. MER-C 02:50, 3 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.