Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only we can save the rainforests


 * 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 of the debate was cute, but delete. Tito xd (?!?) 06:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Only we can save the rainforests
Incorrectly taggda s speedy. Listing here. Sweet and well-meaning, but it is an essay. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Niz 18:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Perhaps merge facts with Amazon_rainforest or Deforestation if they the facts are not already present. -Andrew 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Awwwwww ... but yeah, delete as per nom. Perodicticus 21:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "the majority of us are not bovered"? I'm being picky, but everything worth saving here is already covered in Rainforest, so yes, delete. BD2412  talk 22:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete essay... but cut him some slack; assuming good faith it was written by a 12 year old. Not a bad effort at that.--Isotope23 02:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but as Isotope23 said..cut him some slack. Don't bite the newcomers. -- SoothingR 10:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. *Sniff*  So cute... somebody give that kid a wikicookie...  --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 10:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV. Sorry, Ben. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:59, 26 October 2005 (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.