Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit theory


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unit theory

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

Unreferenced original hypothesis. Prod tag was removed. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely original research with no references. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research. No references. Agree with nominator and Kim Dent-Brown. -- On the  other side  Contribs 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be original research, and there are no references provided. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and put in a museum as a perfect example of what WP:OR refers to. Goochelaar (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR and it is a completely orphaned article. The Bearded One (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Entirely unsourced original research - the submitter even gave a clue with the edit summary "(NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY [please see this])". Ros0709 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete meaningless. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Snow delete as nearly incoherent nonsense. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 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.