Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avian flu- should we worry?

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whilst containing probably vaguely true information in places, it finishes with a rant and, as the title implies, is personal opinion throughout. This isn't really suitable as a redirect anywhere since the title is highly unlikely to be searched for and the title contains a fairly leading question anyway. (It appears not to be copyio.) -Splash^talk 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Adam ^(talk) 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not is a blog. Batmanand | Talk 01:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, but you should worry about editors who say Delete as OR --Mmx1 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. WP:NOT a how-to guide to avoid getting bird flu either. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete personaly opinion M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete belongs in a blog, not here Swilk 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above --Phenz 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom and RoyBoy (although I'm starting to think that perhaps I oughtn't to be eating those dead crows that show up on my front lawn from time to time). Joe 06:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete not a blog. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, unencyclopedic, blog, original research. --Terence Ong 09:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV violation. Personal essay.  (aeropagitica)  12:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Original research, vanity. *drew 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, this is an essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and let's not worry about it any more Deizio 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay. Oliver Keenan 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a soapbox. But some matter may be included in Avian flu. ImpuMozhi 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not an article. This isn't the place for it. --Jay(Reply) 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally POV. Sorry, belongs on OpEd page somewhere elseBridesmill 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele High POV, and very little substance. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Akira 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Try a free web host instead. ProhibitOnions 23:12, 26 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.