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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding trends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article reads like a how-to manual. And as we all know, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. I was looking at trying to edit this article so it conforms to our policies but nothing is really salvagable from what I can see. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a substantive copyvio of this page. --Mkativerata 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice catch Mkativerata! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Copyvio status probably takes it out, but if not, there's no possible authority for entering/not entering something on the list, so 100% original research. Accounting4Taste 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Copyvio is sufficient - and kudos to Mkativerata for the catch. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-encyclopedic even if not copyvio. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 12 October 2007 (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.