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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da Sham[edit]

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

Article was originally created for a non-existent Heesham Brook (not found in GNIS search or on Google) and has been turned into a complete nonsense article. Alansohn 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as incomprehensible. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A1, or WP:CSD#A7? --kateshortforbob 09:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. Jakew 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless redirect, keep delete Heesham Brook as non existent unless sources can be found. J Milburn 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'll explain that, because the way I said it isn't so clear. I reverted Da Sham to the last 'good' version about Heesham Brook, then moved it to the correct title (minus the talk page, as the good talk page was still in the original location) then fixed all the relevant redirects. No copy-paste moves, all done properly. J Milburn 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had tweaked the article on good faith after it had been created as Heesham Brook. After seeing the latest renames and edits coming from the article's creator, I checked for "Heesham Brook" on the GNIS database and found nothing, nor did Google uncover anything. While the previous version looked a lot more like a real article, there seems to be no reason to believe at this point that there is anything here worth saving, hence this AfD. Alansohn 13:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Throw into the Lake of Eternal Fire or Speedy Delete per CSD A1, A3, G1, or G3 - I've been tracking a series of low-intensity vandalistic article creations and edits, all concerned with the nonsense word heesham. --Ssbohio 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nominator. I fail to see why 2 instances of this need to exist Corpx 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am da sham. it is real —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashamyo (talk • contribs) 00:53, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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.