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--Tone 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clonezip[edit]

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

The subject of a previous prod [1], the article has drifted since then into incomprehensible nonsense. The only reason I'm not prodding again is its previous prod. Fails WP:NN and WP:PN "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - un-encyclopedic as per nom. --Pmedema (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. as above, reasoning by WP:PN. alex.muller (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense; I can't make head or tail of it. *** Crotalus *** 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a technical term that might not make sense to a layman. Could make a decent article if (a) it's real and (b) someone finds some sources for it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is more of an unpopular neologism than a technical term. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:32, 29 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.