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 as silly vandalism, and only a hair short of being an attack article. The only reference is in fact to a book. No such book exists in Yale University Press' catalogue. The red flags come thick and fast from that point on. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangra bot[edit]

Bhangra bot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I believe this article should be deleted because it isn't written from a neutral point of view, it is unencyclopedic, and may possibly contain false information. (I'm questioning the reference.) Icestorm815 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably just something someone made up one day, judging by the external link. Much of the content appears to have been fabricated as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only reference is Youtube, the text is complete rubbish. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.