Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stapling


 * 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 Reverted by User:Dmz5 to former version as a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stapling

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page conveys no meaningful information. It appears to be nothing more than someone’s rambling. &#9679;DanMS 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, nonsense. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted to go for speedy also, but I couldn’t quite come up with a category. Too bad we don’t have a db-foolishness category. &#9679;DanMS 05:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article is clearly a joke.  This probably should have been nominated for speedy deletion.  --Treemother199 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps reverting to an earlier version, a simple redirect to Staple (fastener), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stapling&oldid=16433952, would be the best solution. --Eastmain 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect (as above). SkierRMH 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced nonsense. Edison 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy revert per Eastmain. Alternatively, redirect to Stapler. --N Shar 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was bold and reverted the obvious vandalism - it's now a redirect again, as it should be. I don't think a full AfD was necessary.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I don't understand why it didn't work. If you click on the article name or search for it, you get the vandalized version, but if you go into history and click on my most recent edit, it's the redirect.  What's causing the conflict?  Should I have blanked the page first?- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Purge the cache and wait? --N Shar 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)