Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubik's Cube for Dummies:Solve the Rubik's Cube using simple English words


 * 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 violation of WP:NOT. Non-admin closureJForget 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube for Dummies:Solve the Rubik's Cube using simple English words
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant infringement of WP:NOT. Original author removed prod. Oli Filth 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. -- B figura  (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree, delete as a blatant HOWTO, original research, and possible WP:COPYVIO from page of Jessica Fridrich, the person this method is claimed to be based on. (Rubik's cubes. I remember Rubik's cubes.) — Travis talk  22:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - should be speedy delete now that author has blanked article. Oli Filth 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was about to speedy per blanking by author. As it is, I will wait for another admin's verdict on this WP:OR and WP:HOWTO article. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per norm. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A clear violation of WP:NOT. - Nascentatheist 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom Mbisanz 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, and also as original research. -- Karada 09:14, 30 August 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.