Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French defeat

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Mgm|(talk) 14:20, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

French defeat
I can't see the point of this list. Seems like more of that nasty US anti-French garbage. --LeeHunter 13:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the User page of the originator, he's English. 66.60.159.190 19:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (not a vote)
 * English? I should have guessed. :) --LeeHunter 21:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * needs to be speedy, was created by a vandal--Boothy443 13:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was created by User:Mike1971inter. I see no indications that he is a vandal.  However, delete as non-encyclopedic.  Although it could be redirected to History of France.  RickK 23:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, But I'd rather see it here than CSD. Inter 15:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete on the borderline of speedy material, but VfDs don't usually hurt anyone. This article might be the most boring anti-French joke ever told.  For any serious academic purposes, this material could be found in the articles on the history of France. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  15:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sordid. Phils 15:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Samaritan 18:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, irrelevant, potential speedy - Skysmith 10:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic and POV. Note to other voters: we probably can't speedy this since there's nothing in WP:CSD allowing for this sort of article to be speedied, as far as I know. --Idont Havaname 01:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the scholar who wrote this should actually read about the Hundred Years' War, and explain what he means by "50 Years War". Delete. Khanartist  09:03, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)