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 speedy deleted by Pedro. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel 3.0[edit]

Travel 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not a speedy candidate and quite possibly a good faith creation The only sources available are either blogs or travel sites of uncertain reliability and independence. Basically an essay and the parts that are of encyclopedic value could easily be merged into Travel 2.0 until this subject matures enough to warrant an independent article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently I'm a blind fool. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 April 2/Articles‎ EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteSpeedy delete For one, it is a word-for-word copyvio from here. SWik78 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Delicious carbuncle's valid argument, I changed my vote to a more appropriate one. SWik78 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete copyvio as noted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy D There's nothing "possible" about this copyvio, its word for word. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:59, 3 April 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.