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 Speedily deleted by me. This is one of those articles that is so bad that it is difficult to work out which deletion criteria apply to it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple emitter Engineer Product Design[edit]

Article content has nothing to do with its (nonsense) title. If something was requested in WP:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences, it doesn't mean that such article should be created no matter what. btw, there is already article Tom Thomson. Skarebo (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Highly unencyclopedic article rife with issues, including the fact that its nonsensical title has nothing to do with the article's content. It combines unreferenced, biased information about engineering with a sloppy quasi-biography of Tom Thomson, already the subject of his own article. POV is employed throughout the article and misspellings are everywhere. But beyond that, the article doesn't make sense, its title doesn't make sense, and really there is no reason for its existence. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of above. We have articles for real engineering, and the material on Thomson is copied from the existing article. TheFeds 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs) [reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (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.