- 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. V and OR violations. I can't find anything on Google to suggest that even a redirect would be necessary. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thread breaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Original research, unverifiable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It's not verifiable. Please delete. --Fromgermany 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article's sources are totally unverifiable; they are based on a website's forum (which cannot be counted as a source) and are therefore inappropriate as an article's source. Besides, the article's content is very "dangerous"; it basically teaches its readers how to perform "thread breaking". --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's an interesting idea, but the article doesn't convince me it's a well-known or delineated subject (to say nothing of the points other !voters have raised). --136.223.3.130 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced, appears violateWP:OR. Cogswobbletalk 14:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to something on trolling or the like. JJL 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 11:41, 8 November 2007 (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.