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.
This page has been nominated for Deletion by anonymous contributor 76.179.203.138 without further explanation. --Tikiwont 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page DOES NOT deserve to be deleted. It is a legitimate explanation of Dunkin Donut's new advertising campaign!Yeyewa 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be a legitimate explanation but that does not equate to a reason to create an article for it. A fake language invented for an ad campaign that has no existence beyond said ad campaign is not encyclopedic. Arkyan 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I addeded some references and copyediting. However, it needs to be clarified what the topic of the article is. About the imaginary language there is relatively little to write and I doubt that the term has even been invented by this campaign. Because of a rather widespread reception in blogs and groups, this may rather become an article about an advertising campaign, if someone sees a notable case. Meanwhile I will have a latte macchiato and a wikibreak. --Tikiwont 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I knew that my caffeine level was rather low;) Merge into Dunkin' Donuts, which would then actually receieve its first external references.--Tikiwont 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. An imaginary word invented for an advertising campaign deserves its own article? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dunkin' Donuts page has a legitimate section for such content; an article for a segment of one advertisement campaign isn't justifiable. Whilding87 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dunkin' Donuts. The sources do not seem to justify the existence of a separate article, but it does deserve a note in the company article. -- Black Falcon 23:11, 1 March 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.