Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical human person

Physical human person
This was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion by User:Joy Stovall. I don't believe it fits any of the descriptions of such pages. The page is quite nonsensical, but I don't know wether any information can be salvaged. Thus, no vote from me. &mdash; David Remahl 15:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds like it should be an interesting article - it isn't and nothing looks salvagable to me (which would leave it as an empty page). Rather a pity as I'm sure there's lots that could be written about it. Jongarrettuk 15:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete A not very successful attempt to micro-define "human." Even if it were cleaned up (such as to not imply that infertile people aren't human!), it still wouldn't really make sense as an article.
 * Delete. The material (such as it is) is of a philosophical bent inappropriate to an encyclopaedia. Fire Star 18:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with FireStar --Improv 21:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Idiosyncratic dictdef.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Not a well-established term with that meaning. Better to err on the side of VfD listing, but I personally think this one could have been a speedy. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds like patent nonsense to me. Delete. Why has speedy become so much more difficult to get through lately? Frankly, we could use speedier deleting on a lot of idle crud -- not less. - KeithTyler 00:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I did my bit by proposing a scheme where things like this could be handled, but for trying to remedy abuse of Speedy Delete I was presumed to be trying to give admins more power. Good luck to any future reformers.  This is nonsense. Geogre 14:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)