Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of baltimotre riots for a class project


 * 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. Secret account 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

History of baltimotre riots for a class project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It is a school paper and a fork of Baltimore riot of 1968. Alksub (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This sort of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, maybe not a fork, because this is the "Baltimotre" riots, not the Baltimore ones! Seriously though, a class paper is pretty inappropriate for an encyclopædia.  Lankiveil (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, obviously. A school paper is not an encyclopedia article, and we've already got an article on the subject. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, needless duplication of article and the original has more information - Dumelow (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a school jotter. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Geez, I hope this was just the rough draft. If you're gonna use Wikipedia to write your school assignments, use the "sandbox" and then bury it.  Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails WP:NOT,WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Baltimotre. wow. An example of the writing in this: "More on the riot is the mention of curfew because he worked as a pharmacist". Hmmm. Doc Strange (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * editor... senses... twitching... must... find... red... pen... Delete as unencyclopedic and WP:NOT, mostly. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Close as SNOW delete.  Keeper   |   76  22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried and failed to persuade the author not to do it this way. DGG (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (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.