Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew theory


 * 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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew theory
Idiocy that should be deleted as original research. 66.191.124.236 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No relevant Google hits; this is a original research, if not outright nonsense -GTBacchus 05:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. *drew 06:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. it's clearly been put in as a joke... GhostGirl 10:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Patent nonsense. Not even BJAODN material.  Can it be speedied as nonsense? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/Speedy delete. This is not patent nonsense as that term is defined on Wikipedia. A speedy criterion that I would argue applies is G3, as this is really silly vandalism ie. a joke article. encephalon  16:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I have tagged it as such. encephalon  16:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.