Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental spoiling

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental spoiling

nn dictdef (27 questionable googles) --Doc (?) 00:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to pollution. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:48, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete: A redirect wouldn't be bad, but I don't think it's necessary, and we don't have any content here to preserve. Geogre 02:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, which is why I didn't say "Merge". Someone who types in this term is probably looking for pollution - I could see it happening. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
• Delete I highly doubt anyone will use this as a search term. --Xcali 04:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and Xcali. Quale 05:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per BD2412. Blackcats 09:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, same as above. StopTheFiling 18:02, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for redirect. I see the phrase "environmental despoliation" more than this, which is probably just somebody's don't-use-big-words version. Barno 18:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for redirect. Those looking for pollution will look under pollution. carmeld1 06:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not about pollution. It could be some sort of psychological term, as a few hits on google and the article itself state. Take a look at google hit Romantic Relationships Study Guide (Final Exam). Poli 07:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.