Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly duckling presse

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: Speedy redirected by Fagstein --Rory096 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly duckling presse

A copy of the page Ugly Duckling Presse Sir Isaac Lime 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Ugly Duckling Presse. Royboycrashfan 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletion not appropriate, redirect. For great justice. 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect per Royboycrashfan. Fagstein 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think you undersand. Royboycrashfan is proposing a redirect. Not deletion. For great justice. 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect. Wouldn't even need AfD, just do the redirect if you spot a clear dupe. Weregerbil 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Ugly Duckling Presse. No need for AFD, this AFD should close by now. --Terence Ong 09:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Redirected. The two texts appear identical. Fagstein 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Close please. Now redirected to Ugly Duckling Presse which doesn't have an AfD tag, so it either needs to be tagged or the nomination should be closed. Regarding notability and verifiability, Worldcat lists a number of UDP books; they seem to specialize in art books and poetry. Thatcher131 20:28, 5 April 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.