Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination)

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. -Doc ^ask? 10:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Review

Highly POV, and the article was deleted before The text is different this time around, or I would have put this up for a speedy; but the justification for the first delete--the website is non-notable--still exist. The current text is highly POV. EngineerScotty 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a somewhat relevant discussion on the talk page between me and Malber (who has created the page anew). The solution to the previous AfD was apparently a redirect, which I still think is the correct choice. Hbackman 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Previous AFD is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review --EngineerScotty 06:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this just might be worth a mention on Criticisms of Wikipedia, but certainly not worth a whole article. —Cleared as filed. 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete because recreation of deleted material. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:19, 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.