Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOM: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:19, 4 March 2006

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOM

Neologism... the article admits it... Booyabazooka 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a neologism dab page. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Makes not sense to me anyway. Bobby1011 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. The shameless blogvertising seals the deal. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was originally a redirect to Opium, which is (apparently) sometimes referred to as "God's Own Medicine". dbtfz ^talk 06:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to version of 25 September 2005 -- intended as a correct TLA disambig page mervyn 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly reverted. Royboy crashfan

15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/revert as per mervyn -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simpliciter. No infomration here worth keeping. · rodii · 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now (again) a legitimate disambiguation page. dbtfz ^talk 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a real TLA. -- Krash (Talk) 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current disambig format. --Bachrach44 23:38, 26 February 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result of the debate was '''no consensus'''. [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 06:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 ===[[GOM]]===
 Neologism... the article admits it... [[User:Booyabazooka|Booyabazooka]] 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 13: / Line 20: @@
 *'''Delete'''. Not a real TLA. --&nbsp;[[User:Krash|Krash]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Krash|Talk]])</small> 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' under current disambig format. --[[User:Bachrach44|Bachrach44]] 23:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>