Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinosaurus Vs Rex

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 CSD G6, duplicate material -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinosaurus Vs Rex

This article appears to replicate information that's available at Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, with little reason for it to be done. It also seems to have no sources, it's got a copyright statement in it, a disclaimer that suggests it's based partly on speculation, and a bunch of pictures at the bottom. I don't see any point of this article. PROD tag was removed by an anon, so bringing it here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Jamoche 06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant due to the Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, if you don't want text reproduced, don't put it in Wikipedia. --WikiSlasher 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

99% DO NOT DELLETE. I QUIT DOING TAT ALLRDY!!!!!GC 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I Wiil do anything 4 the"wikipedia Team"GC 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Reason 4 NO SOURCES

1. . Yahoo.com lets ppl take their info w/o there consent.
2. . Its a DAMN Non Burocraitic world[u know wat I mean],It a 'Free World'.[No Restrictions}

• Strong delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 09:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG NO DELETE*Lets Duisscus this on the nxt page.GC 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)*
  • User has already voted.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 100% WEAK DELETE-by poll on NRC @ [1]]. GC 09:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • User has already voted.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: AFD removed from log by 130.13.237.13 Yomangani^talk 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Also the copyright notice is for 2007. Note that our "STRONG NO DELETE" debator just happens to be the creator of the article. MER-C 09:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sry,can ya edit it GC 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• • 1. NOTICE!!! An anon changed my copyright from 2000 to '07-GC[NRC ADMIN]GC 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2 blocked statements near PROD.-GC 10:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• [leaves,then comes back w/ a 45.Magnum in holster on belt][Sits down,talks]-GC 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)(don't reply 2 this message.)
• Do I have to change this ARTICLE'?[Yes=1,No=2]|ARTICLE has been REDONE[No Ation Required]-GC 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per those advocating deletion. The article duplicates those already written and shows no real prospect for avoiding that. It would need to be "redone" to within an inch of its life to be kept, methinks. Additionally, the views of users of another site shouldn't have any place in determining whether this site keeps or deletes something. They're welcome to present their case, which they appear to have done, but ultimately even if 100% of them want it, it needs to pass muster here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:51, 17 September 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.