Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Disasters 2005

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Disasters 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is redundant, as other lists of disasters exist. It is not sourced and it is not wikified. – Zntrip 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:31Z
• Delete as redundant. Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to 2005. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- anything notable should be in 2005. Thunderwing 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Offers no new information that cannot be found elsewhere, and elsewhere it is better written. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, because handy, convenient, detailed, well-organized, and fascinating articles about incredibly important subjects! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the other deletes already say why it should be deleted. No need for me to repeat them. Acalamari 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per reduntancy. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like it should be at Wikinews. If these existed for several decades I would have voted to keep an umbrella nom. However, this loner should come down. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:52, 10 April 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.