- 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. Unanimity that this is not sufficiently notable for its own page. However, I think that a redirect is a reasonable way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable two-line stub about a question asked at the World Economic Forum. Nearly orphaned, no sources, not much to expand on beyond soapbox / original research answers to the question. —Lowellian (reply) 16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination summary. —Lowellian (reply) 16:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Original research. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete def. original research! --Camaeron (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research with zero notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to World Economic Forum -- can it stay as a redirect? I think people may search for it (I was one of them), and at least they'd get some context. Actually, as you can see in the history, I created the article as a redirect, but when Seasonago added some content, I thought he'd be willing to expand it, and even contacted him at the time, but apparently he never edited again... --Waldir talk 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Waldir. Not WP:RS-able enough for its own article, really, but certainly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in en:. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 7 March 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.