Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do More


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do More

 * – ( View AfD View log )

seriously is there anything called Do More Strategy/approach ? . User James Watson suggested that the article should be taken to afd since he declined a speedy delete.don't think this article deserves a place on wikipedia.thank you Linguistic ''' Geek  11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is not a thing as a do more approach,how com google is full of it when you search Do More NATO Pakistan or Do More US Pakistan or several key terms in the context of war against terror.. Its one thing to Improve the article but to deny the do more factor altogether is not fair.It is important in the context of war against terror. Half the anti US protests in Pakistan are linked to the "Do More" approach(with demands of "No More"). It is important to understand it to understand the complexities of war against terror. Its one of the major factors in the 2000s between US Pakistan Afghanistan Relationship.Lm 997 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks more like an attempt at political commentary or a pure WP:SYNTHESIS than an actual encyclopedia topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Should we have an article for “very encouraged” as well? (no we shouldn't). --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but give the information in articles on the events mentioned. Borock (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "very encouraged" an important negative term in US-Pakistan relationship? Shouldn't people learn and important negative term(and why)on a war from an from encyclopedia? On the least I suggest it should be merged with Pakistan-US relations.Lm 997 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2010 (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.