Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloning Hazards

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Cloning - hazards.'

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Inherently POV, as well as the poster's book review and POV rant. RickK 23:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

redir cloning? Martin 00:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Quite POV. Delete, remove links to it. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for vanity press books. Redir is pointless, anyone searching will find the cloning article anyway. Andrewa 02:16, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advert. I have boldly removed links from cloning and [human cloning]] which pointed to this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
delete - this is just complete rubbish, the author doesn't even seem to know what cloning means.... pir 17:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already stated. - Lucky 6.9 18:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but a POV rant. --Starx 04:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cloning has all the info someone might need. Burgundavia 20:33, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I want a refund on the two minutes I wasted reading that tripe---Man invented fire, shelter, Wal-Mart, the Oreo, and they were, for the most part, ok. Then man created the clone.. Yuck. Grendelkhan 20:59, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
Delete. But we've been warned... "A much bigger problem is one that most people refuse to speak of: if the clones are persecuted, will they fight back?". Oooh... -- EuroTom 22:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Kd4ttc 02:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.