Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolypology Theory

 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 delete. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rolypology_Theory
This seems to be a very silly theory and not a serious article. Martijn Faassen 23:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Silly? How can the below be silly? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notable references, and "A recent theory submitted by scientifically advanced internet user" makes it not credible. Zzyzx11 02:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN Extraordinaire! the text is only moderately funny, but the picture had me laughing out loud. Really. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  02:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Andrew Lenahan. Uncle G 17:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Prime BJAODN material. Oh lordy, how I laughed.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh :). Thue | talk 22:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's so funny, shouldn't it go to GJAODN instead?   &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, definitely! (whoops,already been moved) Martinultima
 * very greatBJAODN; but he did not take into account the different rotation speeds of Earth depending on your respective latitude Lectonar 14:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha ... make sure the picture gets copied to BJAODN as well. linas 14:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN - David Gerard 17:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. Gosh. If only we didn't have an no original research policy! I'd be voting keep for sure, if only for the image. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 11 Mar 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.