Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yangon International Educare Center


 * 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 speedy delete, copyright infringement. Keegan talk 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yangon International Educare Center

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A fine example of a genuine vanispamcruftisement. The entire article is composed of originally researched, unencyclopedic, unsourced, spammy and non-notable material. Hús ö  nd  03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * NO DELETION It's a real school! Wikipedia sucks in research! Go search YIEC in search engines! (YIEC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.138 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ad. Doczilla 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per notability (,..lack of). - Rjd0060 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to Delete: Go and TYPE YIEC in Google you nerds! And go type it in Youtube.com (Maskmaker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't Delete: I see noreason at all to delete this Article. It is based on fact. I saw it in it's original web page. It's all word to word from YIEC web page. One can find it on www.yiec.org. (ISY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it's word-for-word from the YIEC web page, it should be speedy deleted as a copyvio. shoy  (words words) 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: It is. See . If the copy violation was removed, we'd be left with only the lead. Tagged for speedy. shoy  (words words) 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep School seems to get regular mentions in English language media for that country, e.g. The Irrawady Colonel Warden 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is mentioned in English language media. And that doesn't help to solve any of the concerns listed above to justify deletion. Hús  ö  nd  16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sockpuppets and personal attacks aren't exactly helping its case any either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete (and quickly) per nom. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 21:10, 6 November 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.