| Revision as of 15:55, 5 October 2006 editAnville (talk | contribs)6,887 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:07, 5 October 2006 edit undoJefffire (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,518 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *'''Delete''' as an irreparable mess. When (if) the ] article itself gets put into a decent state, ''that'' will be the appropriate time to consider branching off sub-articles on various details. ] 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as an irreparable mess. When (if) the ] article itself gets put into a decent state, ''that'' will be the appropriate time to consider branching off sub-articles on various details. ] 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. ] 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:07, 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)