Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of Benches In The Leys School Chapel


 * 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. per WP:SNOW Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

List Of Benches In The Leys School Chapel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no real meaningful content; it's written in casual prose and is basically a list of benches. None of the CSD criteria really worked, so I'm hoping for a speedy here  Flying  Toaster  02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Rtyq2 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing manageable could be inserted into The Leys School, the closest logical merge. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article lacks much of a point, there is no reason this article should stay up. Rtyq2 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable as it has not been the subject of 'significant coverage'.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on a lack of coverage... its nonnotable and has no sources for verification. Themfromspace (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete Are you kidding? A list of benches? How is this verifiable? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing to merge, no need to redirect. The best article name I've seen to come to AfD in a long time, mind! &mdash; neuro(talk) 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete Could've gone with Nonsense or test page, and added a comment (and an admin hopefully would've deleted it based on a broad interpretation). Shows yet again though the deficiency of speedy tags though. There really needs to be db-unencyclopedic/db-other. Also, delete per WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The speedy criteria are already interpreted more broadly than they were supposed to be. If people are going to expand on that, things get deleted speedily that should get proper discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - on the basis that this is original research or at least unsourced. If there's a discussion of this in secondary sources, then an article could be recreated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2008 (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.