Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snud

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 of the debate was delete.

crashfan 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

Snud

The page was deleted several times. Perhaps not actually a speedy candidate, it is patently non-encyclopedic (per

• Delete
  Wikipedia is not for things made up in (Sunday) school.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.--Pal5017 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mak (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Should be NPOV'd and treated as a webcomic article, seems to me. Hackwrench 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it's a webcomic, on what ground is it notable? --Saforrest 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Casper2k3 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Saforrest 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aeropagitica Bucketsofg 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:OR, whatever. Henning Makholm 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 23:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and this is not a speedy deletion candidate why? NTK 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither
    PROD makes a repost a speedy candidate unless it meets the criteria on its own, it would be a stretch to delete it as either patent nonsense or vanity, and no other criteria can apply. - Mike Rosoft 07:02, 10 April 2006 (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.