Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why is plastic surgery bad

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 delete per WP:SNOW. WODUP 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is plastic surgery bad

Why is plastic surgery bad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:OR, essay, personal reflection, anything else? ukexpat (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nip and tuck I mean, delete, all the above reasons. -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-neutral original research. Epbr123 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The article title will never lend itself to anything but soapboxing. So Awesome (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not an article and it can never be with a title like that. (Unless somebody records an album with that name...) ... discospinster _talk 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• You know someone will. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to 'Plastic Surgery controversy' or some such name. Seems there is nothing like this as the moment on wikipedia. It's a notable subject, but obvious a very poor article at the moment. SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, utter nonsense mixed with OR and SOAP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subject requires a paragraph or two in the Plastic Surgery article about "controversies", this is not encyclopedic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as it violates no original research and NPOV Bfigura ^(talk) 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A poorly written essay full of original research and POV. I think it might be snowing Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy already! - As said above, non-neutral, obviously an essay, not NPOV, yada yada yada. Merge with Plastic surgery before deleting, though. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone, and block creator per this. JuJube (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not even the name is encyclopedic.--Berig (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, the creator has only ever made disruptive edits. --Hera1187 (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole Afd process is a bite at the newbie, so I don't see that newbies reply as unusual, it's more a reaction to the wiki procedures and especially not making policies/guidelines clear to new articles creators. SunCreator (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Yeah, definitely an essay. 23skidoo (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - essay and fails WP:NPOV. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-neutral, orphaned, and a blatant test. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW. Clearly an essay full of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAP JEB90 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork and per WP:NOT. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:26, 19 April 2008 (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.