Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was send this off to BJAODN. Take a look here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Non-Encyclopedic  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - patent nonsense JRP 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anyone want to count the fallacies and misuses of logic in that? I lost count, myself. -R. fiend 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I actually discovered some new types of fallacies in this article. I think I'll write an article about this article as it is now notable in fallacy research. --Dmcdevit·t 23:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is nothing if not educational. -R. fiend 04:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * WTF? - I mean - Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing encyclopedic here. --Several Times 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I worry about the future of the British government... Delete. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN I actually found the arguments quite funny. --Scimitar parley 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a Encyclopedia Article - NickC 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or BJAODN. Original research. It seems at least as sound as some of the arguments for the existence of God that I've seen presented. Anyway: 1) Nothing is better than a good laugh. 2) This article is a good laugh. 3) Ergo, it would be better to have no article at all than to have this article. So delete it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL :). Thue | talk 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN as a flawed concept. -- BD2412 talk 19:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJADON. --Titoxd 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this article is dropped from Wikipedia, and no-one reads it, does it make me happy? Yes!  --A D Monroe III 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LART time. humblefool&reg;Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and maybe send to BJAODN. Binadot 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This philosophical question is well-known, and it might be possible to write a reasonable article about it, however this article is just nonsense. --Buuneko 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for this steaming pile of nonsense. The fact that #8 is taken as an assumption, without any qualification, made me wretch. Xoloz 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJOADN. Ridiculous argument that goes everywhere and nowhere. Item 27 even purports to prove that "this argument must... be flawed". Eric119 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. JamesBurns 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A clear case of BJAODN. -- Kaszeta 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire.DS 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This joke would have been cool, if it didn't suck so much.--Muchosucko 23:50, 22 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.