Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-defense

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, then redirect. Punkmorten 01:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-defense

This article is completly unecisary. It states POV info that can be found other places on WP. The one author is an IP. And the article provides insuficent context to what it's talking about. One could imagine a ligitamte entry with this title, but this isn't it. Tobyk777 07:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. Gazpacho 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Its lazy spam. Nic Lowe
• Redirect to Ecodefense. bikeable (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Bikeable. Tobyk777, the AfD notice goes on the article's page, not the talk page. Cryptic moved it. -- Kjkolb 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Bikeable. --Revolución (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Incognito 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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.