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. Mailer Diablo 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
While I feel for the author of this article and his or her well-written cry of distress, I think it counts as original research: research, I'm sure, that the poster would have preferred not to have done. - squibix(talk) 13:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 12:41, 3 February 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.