Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigium Flammae

Navigium Flammae was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Seems to be utter nonsense. Delete. —Morven 10:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Part of a prank already removed from Celt. Delete quickly. _R_ 12:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. At best a bad joke. And Mr. Picky sez Navigium Flammae = a ship of flame, not ships of fire. Securiger 12:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Silliness, although with a thin base in reality (Caligula's expedition to the English Channel). — Bill 15:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Prank/hoax, could be speedy deleted. Besides, the top export of Roman Britain was Roman Britons. Geogre 21:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like nonsnese. Can't find anything to support the topic. MarkS 22:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's see. No relevant Google hits for "pook", nonexistent on dictionary.com (though "pooka" is a "mischievous spirit in Irish folklore"). Verdict: patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Although were there a "pook", and it a delicacy, and requiring such treatment, no doubt the Romans would indeed have demanded it! zoney ♣ talk 13:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Never heard of this ever, or a 'pook'. -- Mithent 18:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's already on BJAODN. Rickyrab 18:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.