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 Result = Speedy delete as patent hoax _GB^T/C 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FLOW Devil[edit]

PROD contested by page creator. Procedural nom, bringing to community for consensus. Seems to be a hoax, no real available sourcing. GlassCobra 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorsed one of the earlier prods. It seems to be a hoax, no sources show up on the page. Original author has not provided them, despite removing the prod. RayAYang (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unreferenced article fails to demonstrate that this is a notable legend. Given the mention of the "Society for Disgruntled Scientists" in the article, I also suspect that this may be a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no sources, probable hoax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Par being fully unsourced and possible hoax issues. Seeing we had 3 DVotes in 5 minutes, this might just as well be snowballed at this rate.. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? I just tried to read that article. Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 10 July 2008 (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.