- 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. Punkmorten 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the merge proposal points out, this duplicates an existing article. However, there is no info here not already in the other article and a google search for movicast only gets 70 hits. The only place it is used as in the article are the article and its mirrors. The only reference given is a broken link. Given this, I believe a delete is more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. nonexistant term. AdamBiswanger1 04:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The info that is important is duplicated elsewhere, as per above. Interlingua talk 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. The term does not seem to be widely use. It is duplicate information that does not appear to add anything of substance over the merge target. No appreciable edit history either. - Motor (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Optichan 15:50, 17 June 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.