Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References in Free as a Bird

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. WP:SNOW, unambiguously unencyclopedic content. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References in Free as a Bird

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure original research GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatantly original research, definitely not encyclopedic content. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous OR, synthesis, listcruft, etc. JesseRafe (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; wish creator had bothered to read the PROD rationales and saved us all some time, since this one is so obviously inappropriate. —swpb^T 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editor clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia [1]. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other comments. Nothing in this article shows as it is encyclopedic in any way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nowhere near encyclopedic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Per nom and others. Creator has been blocked, and this is clearly non-encyclopedic. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as simply none of this actually suggests an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 12 April 2016 (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.