| Revision as of 16:10, 5 October 2006 editByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:42, 5 October 2006 edit undoSCZenz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,321 edits →[]: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per all the above (and Jefffire, who just gave me an edit conflict). "In most of these arguments, a brief statement of a skeptic or skeptics is presented and then followed by a counter-argument in favor of cold fusion."???? This isn't what an encyclopaedia is for! ] 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per all the above (and Jefffire, who just gave me an edit conflict). "In most of these arguments, a brief statement of a skeptic or skeptics is presented and then followed by a counter-argument in favor of cold fusion."???? This isn't what an encyclopaedia is for! ] 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. This won't necessarily improve the maintainability of ], but in an ideal world this article wouldn't exist and the relevant info would be in the main article. We might as well bring the world one small step closer to being ideal. -- ] 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:42, 5 October 2006
Cold fusion controversy
This started as a POV-fork and ended as a mess. Whereas some editors may be tempted to keep this just as junkyard to keep the main article Cold fusion free from the worst stuff, it would be more honest to delete the fork. --Pjacobi 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as an irreparable mess. When (if) the Cold fusion article itself gets put into a decent state, that will be the appropriate time to consider branching off sub-articles on various details. Anville 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I've been familiar with the article for a long time and believe it's better off dead. It's filled up with original research, PoV, lunatic fringe, and sniping comments. Outside of the garbage, there nothing there. Jefffire 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above (and Jefffire, who just gave me an edit conflict). "In most of these arguments, a brief statement of a skeptic or skeptics is presented and then followed by a counter-argument in favor of cold fusion."???? This isn't what an encyclopaedia is for! Byrgenwulf 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This won't necessarily improve the maintainability of cold fusion, but in an ideal world this article wouldn't exist and the relevant info would be in the main article. We might as well bring the world one small step closer to being ideal. -- SCZenz 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)