Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Saxon hunting

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. Dakota 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon hunting[edit]

Original Research unverified rubbish and confusion unsalvageable, nonencyclopedic amateurish and possible hoax Fecal Matters 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crap. Fecal Matters 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For reference, since AFD is not a vote, you shouldn't add your own as if it were. It's not a problem, so much, but it will be discounted by the closing administrator - so it's best not to add your own !vote in the first place. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is usually considered a "delete" unless otherwise stated. However, if an editor wants to reinforce their nomination that's OK too... as you say, the closing admin will decide. Deizio talk 08:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiability. Sr13 02:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not verifiable. Consequentially 03:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be verifiable and may be a hoax. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable Matthuxtable 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and not entirely believable, which is making me think it's a hoax (WP:HOAX) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comment of article creator in talk page, " I lost my footnotes and bibliography somehow, so I cannot cite each assertion accurately." If you find them, you could recreate the article or add some comments to an article on hunting or medieval hunting, since I found much of the material interesting.Edison 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are cited. ReverendG 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per aboves. Deizio talk 08:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and reads like an end of term paper, with gross factual errors in the English tradition section. Shame though because some of it is quite good. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A lot of the material on this page looks fairly accurate; but such text as may be salvageable would be better added to royal forest or medieval hunting. Now, hunting Anglo-Saxons might be great sport. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please see WP:V. Either source this shit or get rid of it. Harthacanute3 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The description of hunting law in England after the Norman conquest appears to be correct. The other material is plausible, but the article clearly needs references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.