Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Respiration of human / mammal


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Respiration of human / mammal
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Redundant to respiratory system, which is of significantly higher quality. Title is unlikely search term, so keeping it as a redirect seems useless. Huon (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; also, this cites no source and seems to be original work. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, reads like original work, redundant, title is an unlikely search term. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an original essay. I'm sure I've seen this (or something very much like it) around here before, too. OBM | blah blah blah 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination,& per Dawn Bard. Also what is this being distinguished from? "Respiration of human/fish?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
 *  Exhale Delete Unsourced essay, anything that could be sourced is already in the article on the respiratory system. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article fails an epic failure. It burns my eyes. PhishRCool Talk / Contribs / Secret Page 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. Anyone who says this article is worth keeping is most likely ridiculously inclusionistic. QuidProQuo23 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- and I'm sometimes ridiculously inclusionistic. Simply put, there is no benefit to forking this concept from its base article even if we were to overlook the total lack of citations and pitiable condition of the text. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 16:20, 12 September 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.