| Revision as of 06:07, 6 March 2006 editMelchoir (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,110 edits d← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:36, 6 March 2006 edit undoRick Norwood (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users21,613 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Delete''', dicdef. ] 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', dicdef. ] 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' permastub. ] 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' permastub. ] 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' ] 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:36, 6 March 2006
Science fact
Second nomination. See discussions here and here / Ezeu 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Although I originally deprodded this (because prod isn't appropriate for an article that survived VfD), I think Ezeu is right. I don't see how this can ever be more than a dictionary definition, and I don't see where it could be merged. It's just a wordplay--not actually about science fiction or science either one. NickelShoe 23:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. --日本穣 00:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per NickelShoe. I don't see it ever achieving more content than is here. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per NickelShoe. Sliggy 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It can become a page about science's strugle against forces (govt and religion and custom) that want to shut it up/hide it/deny it/make it illegal because it doesnt go with the existing power structurePatcat88 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds more like some sort of conspiracy theory article to me, rather than fact. --日本穣 03:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dicdef. Only common use of the phrase is in Analog magazine, which bills itself as "Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact". Fan1967 04:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef. Sandstein 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete permastub. Melchoir 06:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Rick Norwood 13:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)