Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Jewish Gay rights movement and antii-semitiism

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German-Jewish Gay rights movement and antii-semitiism

Even if the title was spelled right, and the glaring bias cleaned up, this still has no chance of being encyclopedic material. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Quite so. THE KING 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Del - glaring factual errors (Engels was not Jewish, etc.) If such an org. ever existed, the article will have to be started from scratch under a proper title. This one is hopeless. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not bad an effort, and the topic is interesting and deserving an article. This one is not that article. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When I read this I thought to myself it really should be merged somewhere. Then I looked at the source material, and it doesn't verify what's here, unfortunately. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 08:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When I first read that title I thought it was a joke but I don't see how this couls ever be encyclopedic Ydam 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other reasons above. PJM 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unrescuable. Vizjim 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack piece. Possibly allowable under a different name with respectable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Strothra 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another garbage dumped here by User:John robinson. There is at least one on AfD now. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopaedic, POV, poorly-written garbage. Unsalvagable.--Charles 03:19, 27 May 2006 (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.