Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Cap In Trade Plan

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. kur ykh 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Cap In Trade Plan[edit]

Non-notable "plan". Part of the ongoing "North American Union" being pushed by conspiracy theorists. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34041744_ITM and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22cap+in+trade%22 for more about "cap in trade". -- Eastmain (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doing a Google search and finding the phrase "cap in trade" does not equate with finding any evidence of this purported plan. Did you read your Google results? One of the first was about a cap in trade levels in Australia.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the author mean "cap and trade"? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cap in trade" is just republican-speak for "cap and trade". For example, see Glenn Beck. - Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator has called this plan non-notable. Actually, there is a pretty good reason why it is not notable: no such plan has ever been proposed, apparently. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Does not establish notability, has no sources and predicts future events as the bulk of the article. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless any RS can be found that such a plan actually exists, this is utterly non-notable. And frankly, non-existent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (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.