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 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Unsourced article about a non-notable local dance. Appears to be a violation of WP:NFT at best, or of WP:CB at worst. --Finngall ^talk 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like something someone made up in school one day. Fails WP:V without a doubt. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete per nom. Childish nonsense. Clarityfiend 08:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A quick glance at Google makes me think of WP:HOAX.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CB indeed. - Myanw 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not like it's a use for anybody.--Vaishu2 11:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete We have db-nonsense for a reason. Closenplay 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Db-nonsense is intended for articles that are incoherent or gibberish, not hoaxes or other kinds of junk. Propaniac 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. Closenplay 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable unsourced nonsence. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:50, 5 June 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.