Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.co.ck


 * 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 all. Secret account 04:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

.co.ck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page contains very brief content of .co.ck. Its reference in .ck should be enough. パンダ (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 18.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and I'm also mass nominating several non notable second level domains, these second level should be mentioned on their respective top level domain. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect .co.ck to .ck There's apparently nothing to be said about it, and it's covered perfectly well in .ck. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all. It is doubtful that multiple third-party sources have much to say about any second-level domain. Even most TLD articles do not seem to be expandable beyond stub length. No prejudice against redirecting. Keφr 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - .co.ck, hmm, anyone spot the issue in this domain sublevel? I'm surprised anyone actually assigned that! Delete these articles, by the way, I don't see why any of them are necessary. Luke no 94  (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete them all. Everything that can be said about these second level domains is already said best within the parent TLD articles.  AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2013 (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.