Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Necessary Labour Concept of Classlessness
- 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 per WP:SNOW. This appears to have been originally written off-Wiki so I'm not going to move it to user-space.. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Necessary Labour Concept of Classlessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Original research. WP:NOT a webhost for essays. Sandstein 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. Eve Hall (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and WP:SNOW. Not a chance this will ever be encyclopaedic. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Chris Neville-Smith Peridon (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some pieces might be preserved in 100 years... 100 laughs of sorts. I liked the switch from subsumed bankers to quantitative Balance (sic) between Men and Women'... NVO (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Offer to userfy Else we run clearly afounl of WP:BITE on a zero day old page from a one week opld contributor. Let him play with it even if we do not think it is an article. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We are not a playground and not a webhost for original research, BITE or not. Sandstein 22:18, 16 January 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.