| Revision as of 00:22, 17 May 2006 editRichardcavell (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,910 edits →[]: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:51, 17 May 2006 edit undoPhilosophus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,675 edits withdraw?Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | :After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? ] 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | * '''Comment''' utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? ] 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - ] 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - ] 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:51, 17 May 2006
Bi-Digital O-Ring Test
Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. Philosophus 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --Philosophus 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --Philosophus 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)