Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transwiki:English manors

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. Article had been transwikied and then deleted from Wikisource, http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Transwiki:English_manors&action=edit&redlink=1 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:English manors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page has been stuck in Transwiki land for a few years now. It needs love, or better, deletion. It started out as an essay of sorts, possibly a copyvio, then was moved to its current ___location in order to be transwikied to WikiSource. They almost certainly don't want it. We don't want it. --- RockMFR 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources, personal essay, original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as JohnCD. Someone's personal essay, and I don't even know what it's about; nothing salvageable here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment where's the Transwiki cleanup page anyways? And doesn't this go to WP:MFD, since it's not an article yet? (Well, I don't remember ever seeing a Transwiki space page listed here) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Complete transwiki to Wikisource. That is what was supposed to be done back in 2006. If Wikisource doesn't want it, they can delete it, but since a transwiki over there was requested a while back, we might as well complete the transwiki. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't WikiSource only take previously published material? And, if so, can anyone find evidence that this is actually published material, rather than just something written by a user? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:28, 23 February 2009 (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.