Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimmelman’s Guillotine

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 delete. Nancy ^talk 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmelman’s Guillotine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bizarre expression that is not confirmed via Google searches. Runs afoul of WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nirgendwo (Moved by Deon: THIS ENTRY IS ENTIRELY FALSE AND MALICIOUS AND SHOULD BE INSTANTLY REMOVED. KIMMELMAN NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirgendwo (talk • contribs) 07:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero non-WP search results, NN/NEO — Deon ^talk 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this _____. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I don't see anything to suggest the content is appropriate or encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no content/attack page. Article tagged. — æk ^Talk 05:02, 29 December 2009 (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.