Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingston Tourist

Re For full deatials see Kington Tourist Information Office
This page is about a tourist information office. I don't think it's encyclopedic/significant enough. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Ugh, delete. -- Solitude 14:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Another ugh. Dealete. - Lucky 6.9 17:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Deleate, not encyclopeadic. Dpbsmith 00:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite a claim made in the title. I can get full details there. To everything? Geogre 00:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsuitable title, no useful content. I've left a message for the anon responsible. Andrewa 01:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Couldn't someone just have gone ahead and deleted this nonsense? Exploding Boy 01:34, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been a speedy delete

Question. Could this possibly have been a speedy delete? Which case in Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion does it fall under? It's certainly not patent nonsense. The content is certainly meaningful. It's closest to being a "Very short page with little or no definition or context" but it's that short. It's just a bad article. I trust it will be deleted, but I don't see it as a candidate for speedy deletion. Dpbsmith 00:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)