Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jombob

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. Angr/talk 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoax neologism, not a real architectural movement as said DVD+ R/W 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete new term created by architects without articles. Royboycrashfan 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant hoax. dbtfz^talk 04:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Hoax. Probable vanity.--Vercalos 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice, it doesn't even try to say what it is, let alone why it's important.Makemi 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-05 05:23Z
• Delete possibly a hoax, doesn't explain what it is. No sources. No content. Kyle sb 10:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ewlyahoocom 10:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Where ^(talk) 14:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with all speed. --Shannonr 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
  -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 10 March 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.