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. Sr13 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio[edit]

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

This article is probably a hoax; it was full of contradictory information, and info that was simply and obviously untrue. Srnec and I have discussed its various problems on the talk page and removed the most problematic text, but the whole thing is rather ridiculous. All the incoming links were added by the same anonymous IPs who created this article, and they have since been reverted as well. Adam Bishop 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bizarre hoax.Merkinsmum 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the sources do not even appear to vaguely support the strange assertions in the article. — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Adam noted, my reasoning is found on the talk page and in edit summaries. Srnec 03:15, 13 July 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.