- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in need of a thorough culling, it's riddled with Original Research, misrepresentation of sources, trivia and is barely literate. I've been trying to deal with the various issues for some time and would welcome some alternative opinions on it. There is a possibility that I'm being too harsh and expecting more than the originator can deliver.
Thanks, ALR (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I say redelete the article and protect it from recreation, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Tom. This article should be deleted as there's no evidence of notability and the article is nothing but a hodge-podge of weasel words and original research. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- God, looking over some of the history...so bizarre, so many unsourced assertions. Redelete, protect from being recreated, then salt the ground and drive a stake through it for good measure. Skinny87 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a look and I think it's clear that this should be re-deleted too. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sent to AfD. EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am archiving this to save PR resources Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)