Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thesis on video


 * 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   delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thesis on video

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

Contested prod. The only reason I am not tagging this article a speedy G1 (pure gibberish) is that it wasn't eligible under that criterion when I prodded it. It is later edits by the creator that made this article a complete mess. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't make heads or tails of this. Some sort of weird online art collective? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 05:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be a mix of a personal essay and an advertisement. J I P  | Talk 05:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under WP:CSD. If this isn't gibberish I don't know what is!! Rick Doodle (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please, just make it go away. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. When I saw this first during NPP I was thinking of G1 and A1, but then decided not to and left the page for a greater mind. At best WP:OR. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While I think wikipedia could usefully do with articles on the theory of video, they need to be coherent in text. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Very much an essay/OR, agree that it's next to impossible to follow. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally incomprehensible; I can't even tell what it's supposed to be about. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maybe this made more sense in the original Norwegian, but the translation is gibberish. This is original research and an essay. I'm used to artspeak, but this is unsalvageable.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:41, 10 June 2009 (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.