Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest modern wedding ring


 * 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 -- JForget 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oldest modern wedding ring

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is just some explanation of some family's wedding ring. Captain  panda  03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense, & I strongly suspect a hoax. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Johnbod. Can't be verified, and whatever content we can find sources for should go into Wedding ring. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Conveniently, the article itself, in practically every other sentence, tells us outright that nothing is known about this subject. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article borders on nonsense although it might not actually cross the line. Notice that the article doesn't say when the "oldest modern wedding ring" was made, which would seem to be essential when discussing the "oldest" of an object. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Speedy Delete" really no substance at all here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What a dumb story. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like nonsense. Something like this definitely needs a source to prove otherwise. And there doesn't seem to be any useful information in the whole article. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Borders on patent nonsense. Even though the Afd came out a short 3 minutes after the article's creation, I can't argue with it.  I see no potential for this topic.  -Verdatum (talk 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not even sure the article's entirely about the ring, but trying to figure out exactly what it's on about is a painful experience. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete god damnit another hoax, probably the third I've spotted today Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and BigHaz you're right. --Lockley (talk) 07:46, 19 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.