Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource Drainer

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 WP:SNOW delete. There really should be a CSD criterion for this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Drainer

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

Unsourced dictionary definition, wandering into attack territory. This was deleted as a PROD last July, but has been re-created in essentially the same form by its original creator, so I'm treating it as a contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:GNG. (And, yet another reason why we need a WP:CSD criteria for unambiguous WP:NOT violations.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom's rationale. And I agree for a CSD for very short NOT violations. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Acroterion, Tom & Gene93K reasons. I think a CSD for NOT violations would be a great idea, but maybe as well as very short it should also be for unambiguous violations (for example the content of a law). Callanecc (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Dennis' reasons, not Gene93k: he was just adding the deletion sorting template. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not an article, it's not a subject, it's not even a definition, zero references. It's just a negative comment by somebody. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom Morris. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Essay, Original research, unsourced, fictitious/hoax. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:23, 10 February 2012 (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.