Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/نتائج مسابقة الفنون النسوية


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

نتائج مسابقة الفنون النسوية
Very short article in Arabic which has been on WP:PNT since 11 September. If someone wants to translate it, go ahead, but I cannot see much harm in deleting something so short (and in an alphabet which is hard to handle for most en: users). Physchim62 13:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dudtz 9/29/05 5:06 PM EST
 * Should it be transwikied instead? Alba 14:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and a lot of the words in it look exactly the same as the ones in the title. Specifically, the last three words of the article. In that case it could be speedied as "a rephrasing of the title" or just "patent nonsense." &hearts; purplefeltangel ( talk ) &hearts; ( contribs ) 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Machine translation of the title (from Systran): "Results contestant of the arts the feminism"; of the body: "Results contestant of the arts the feminism number 1930 Manal Mohammed [e'bwd]". Seems to be rephrasing of title with a small amount of stuff added. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty, but ultimately useless. --Apostrophe 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. (Pretty, but ultimately useless? Sounds like several movie stars I can think of!) --Angr/undefined 07:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not suitable for WP. -- Eagleamn 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense..:: Imdaking ::.  Bow 23:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete-Hardly any info and not appropriate for the English Version of Wikipedia.
 * Delete - It's already been given vastly more time than something this short deserves. --rob 00:17, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.