Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Mathod


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn in favor of renomination in proper forum (RfD). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Mathod

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article title is obviously a misspelling. T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect Isn't it policy to simply redirect misspellings? Otherwise delete. Thetrick (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and let the nominator take this to WP:RfD. --Thetrick (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we can or should cover any of the nearly infinite possible misspellings of everything. We don't want a Sceintific Method, Scientific Mothod, Scyintiphik Meathid, etc etc etc etc... Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep; AfD does articles; this was a redirect before you deleted all the text on the page to add the AfD label, so it should go to RfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as original redirect. WTF!!!!!   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a total misuse of a redirect. Esradekan, please refrain from pure emotion. Prosfilaes, you're using bureaucracy to maintain trash on Wiki. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, because trash is such an unemotional word. It doesn't go here. AfD is busy enough without people listing things here that don't belong here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Golly gee, Prosfilaes maybe you should have done an undo and moved it to rfd instead of just criticizing. We're not all perfect like you, sorry.  I made a good faith effort to clean up something, and you've assisted how? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing links to this redirect except userspace pages, so the redirect itself is useless.  I think we can just delete this here instead of taking it to WP:RfD unless there's a good reason to keep it. SpoomTalk 15:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, having read WP:RfD, I'm changing my vote to speedy keep and relist at RfD. As listed there, historical versions of other articles could link to this redirect, and we can't predict that. SpoomTalk 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Since AfD is for articles, this should go to WP:RfD. I suggest to the nominator he opens a discussion there. WilliamH (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment regardless of the lawyering that seems to be going on it doesn't appear like this is the correct place. May I suggest that someone who knows how be BOLD and move it to RfD. The nom made an error. Don't beat him over the head. Fix it (or at least help him fix it) and yes I'd do it myself but, I don't even no what RfD is (and I'm going home shortly). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to withdraw the afd request, and have it resubmitted for rfd as suggested. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:22, 11 June 2008 (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.