- 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 made by User:Nihiltres, non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Animal testing is wrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The article duplicates Animal testing only with POV and incoherence. Acroterion(talk) 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV Original Research. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For same reason. --Sdornan 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once again, for same reason. Unconscious (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR and non-POV distortion of existing article.PCock 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's an active prod on this article; I suggest closing down this AfD unless the prod's contested. Let's let the process run its course first. Ravenswing 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better to let the AFD run its course instead, so I removed to the prod. PCock 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, AfD trumps PROD, since prod can be forced to undelete later on if anyone contests it ever. AfD is at least somewhat binding unless there's good reason to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better to let the AFD run its course instead, so I removed to the prod. PCock 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hopeless POV, right down to the title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV/Original Research fork without even the merest of effort to look like a real article. Probably doesn't meet CSD, but would WP:SNOW count? 68.186.51.190 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This should be a speedy delete because it is patent nonsense. dtony 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious POV fork per title--SefringleTalk 22:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete even though its been happing for so long. - eo 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Poorly written, unsourced and OR.--JForget 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Point of view, no information. Hu 01:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.