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)
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)