Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations


Stale draft, fake article, take your pick: deleted at AFD (Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)), userfied, and untouched -- as of tomorrow -- for exactly eight years. The creator userspace owner has made five edits in two years -- and two of those were to MFDs trying to save two other stale drafts. Calton | Talk 16:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete agree time to shut this page down. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The wonderful Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky shows that it is possible to invent articles about bilateral relations despite the absence of reliable secondary sources which show the significance (notability) of those relations. The nominated page is an unhelpful fake article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, no valid reason to not have this article parked in userspace. It is more of an almanac entry than an encyclopedia entry. Almanacs need to be complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, other than WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:G4, WP:WEBHOST, and -- by your own admission -- Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an almanac. And that's just off the top of my head. --Calton | Talk 14:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP: Five Pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Maybe it would be better to read what Wikipedia is about, instead of relying on what is in your head. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird, people have been advising you to do that for YEARS, including your selectively convenient readings. You first, then. --Calton | Talk 22:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.