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 redirect to Catherine Doherty. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mandate[edit]

if anything, it might make a box or side-bar for the article about the person referred to in it. But really it is not encyclopedic. DeleteMidgley 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Redirect to Catherine Doherty. Not notable enough for its own article. dbtfz^talk 02:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected by dbtfz^talk 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Catherine Doherty. The material is all there, word-for-word. Fan1967 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the verbatim text in Catherine Doherty --die Baumfabrik 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Catherine Doherty and expand the section on it there. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Samir ∙ T C 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete (history not required as all encyclopaedic content already in Catherine Doherty); anyone who wants to boldly create a redirect thereafter is welcome to do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal That I or anyone Delete this now and simultaneously create that redirect. Or would that be more bad than bold? Midgley 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Baumfrabrik -- Alpha269 15:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Boldly Deleted (and redirected) by unanimous decision. Mecandes 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The above was neither a decission nor unanimous, but a more or less clear consensus that the article should not stay as it was. I'm properly closing this, since Mecandes (talk · contribs) has taken the matter into their own hands. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:29, 13 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.