Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bieronski test

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as unverifiable nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 08:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bieronski test
Neologism. No Google hits. Likely a comment on one of the author's teachers. --Xcali 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 04:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost looks like the production of a student who failed a math test and avenges himself by writing about how ridiculous the whole test was. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an attack on a non-notable test. - Mgm|(talk) 08:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Definitely a boo-hoo from a student, but I can't quite see pulling the trigger on it for libel, as he left the teacher's name out of it, sort of. Geogre 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Leave it be*i thinks its a warning for future students who need to kno of the tactics the teacher usesUser:Aabid Patel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.171.225 (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy or strong delete as attack page and nonsense; I don't know why this isn't covered under WP:CSD. Above vote was by an anon. --Idont Havaname 20:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and a word to the creator: it gets worse as you get older. After a while, you're not even expected to have enough time to finish. humblefool&reg; 21:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is necessary to give a reason for deleting this? If yes: it's rubbish --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Leave it be While the professionalism of page may be called into question, there are some interesting ramifications to the deletion of such a page. The very premise of Wikipedia is that all relevant information is encouraged to be submitted. While the information contained within may be of an obscure or esoteric nature, it is important that it remain on the public domain. HaroldK 21:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.20.7 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The two votes for "Leave it be" are very suspicious. It looks like an attempt to forge nonexistent users. I didn't supply a reason for deletion earlier, but I believe the article should be deleted for these reasons: (a) borderline libel, (b) not notable, (c) neologism, (d) unverifiable. Any of these is grounds for deletion. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 03:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .