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 03:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dermaplex[edit]

Dermaplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - non-notable substance from a made for TV movie so non-notable it doesn't have its own article. Otto4711 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not advisable to have an article for each thing mentioned in every 30 year old movie, which has not been the subject of any independent source. Edison 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random factoid from a movie with no article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the thirty odd year old movie is not on Wikipedia, then a random prop/plot should not be on it either. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per DarthGriz98  ::mikmt 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Zahir13 18:59, 14 January 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.