This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds an awful lot like original research to me. (WP:NOT) --Alan Au 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And nonsense beside.--DNicholls 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cut and paste nonsense. Probell 11:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, functional vanity, not an encyclopedic topic. Robert A West 19:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, non-encyclopedic.Mmmbeer 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:06, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.