Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Option A nutrition anorexia nervosa by Jongchan


 * 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, as copyright infringement.. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Option A nutrition anorexia nervosa by Jongchan

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

In a nutshell: Original research. See also a previous discussion. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Covers material already covered in other entries. Another "I posted my school paper on wikipedia" entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also suggest deleting duplicate entry, currently a not very likely redirect:
 * Hairhorn (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another WP:NOTWEBHOST vio, just like the last one. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was quite happily sitting unopposed at Proposed Deletion. Why did you bring it to AFD?  Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I would've let the PROD expire, but it's been recreated and deleted in many versions recently. Leading me to believe that there are good chances that this would've been de-prodded and would've ended up here anyway. Also PRODs don't reveal problematic editing patterns like AfDs do, nor do the get much attention. The trail of evidence is also harder to follow if everything was deleted through prods, making which administrative action (if needed) to apply harder to determine, and much harder to review (for non-admins) in the case of a screw up. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:34, 21 June 2009 (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.''