Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST

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 Speedy delete redundant copy. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST

Redundant copy of Andrew B. Campbell. I do not suggest a merge, as all of this article's content is replicated in the other. Colonel Tom 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete One copy's enough. Edit history is bizarre over the last three days. Author added a section to one article, then went over and added the same text to the other. Seems awfully pointless. Fan1967 02:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and no need to redirect. - Richardcavell 02:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. However, Wiki can be very confusing to newcomers. BITE Tyrenius 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I think we all know how this one ends. jbolden1517^Talk 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article. Agree ... no need to redirect as this title is non-standard and not one that would be an expected search title.—ERcheck @ 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a replicated page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the crowd above. Rockpocket (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content, speedy if at all possible. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 10:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles (yes I know this AFD only applies to this one) The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:10, 18 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.