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 as unsourced original research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destructionist[edit]

Destructionist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced OR essay. Originally complete with copyvio dictionary definitions (from various online dictionaries), which have now been removed. Remaining material seems thoroughly OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete basically a list of dictionary definitions and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, entirely OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WtF?? --MinervaSimpson 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Woo, what a nice example of original research. Localzuk^(talk) 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails on WP:OR.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An OR list of definitions. --Sable232 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. --Mig ^(Talk) 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally OR essay - ∅ (∅), 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TSO1D 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tone 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a great example of WP:OR violation. --tgheretford (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 11 December 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.