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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-referenced, non-notable, non-encyclopedic content from blog; violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not for things made up one day) mhking (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, original research. Drawn Some (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete source is a blog, wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Note on talk page indicates that the author is looking to help this image "catch on". This should be done somewhere else.--RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think the GOP is looking to replace their logo with that offered by a blog they strongly disagree with anytime soon. No lulz on this one, folks. Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since the only source is the creator, it's safe to say this is an attempt to promote something that has caught on yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made-up logo, Wikipedia doesn't create articles on the whim of Daily Kos bloggers. Fences and windows (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2009 (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.