Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adversary process
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful text, although "Adversary process" is a valid term for lawyers. ReyBrujo 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense. --Trovatore 04:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This insertion on wikipedia is excellent. It does have meaningful text and i nominate to keep it on the site as it is the only attempt at defining the adversary process. It is acurrate in its definition of a adversary opinion which is a large process of the adversary process, i mean its the end result. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.154.72.93 (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 October 2005)
- Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It would be possible to write a valid short article on this topic. But this article doesn't fit that description. Crypticfirefly 04:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (obviously) but once that's done, redirect the name to Adversarial system AndyJones 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per AndyJones. I've added the current content to WP:BJAODN. Ilmari Karonen 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article and redirect name to Adversarial system, per above. BD2412 talk 15:20, 7 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.