This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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. JeremyA (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being a hoax isn't a valid criterion for "speedy delete", which is why this is here. DS 03:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, with nonsense. --WCFrancis 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Don't Delete Has this has been erroneously place in the deletion category? -- SPBrown 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
*Don't Delete I don't know but it's a very interesting theory --K_Paul 08:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
this is no hoax man
- Delete , speedy as nonsense if possible, and block User:82.195.99.23 for vote vandalism and pretending to be other users, please, nice admin. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think this should be deleted - it's still a worthy entry.
- This unsigned entry from creator User:82.195.99.23 continues to state he wants article to remain with no verification of the shifting claims in the article. Neither Andrew Peach nor book named in early version were found on Amazon. As for Google: "Your search - Asquantabism - did not match any documents." --WCFrancis 17:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Unless you provide some evidence that some philosopher actually proposed this theory (as opposed to you just making it up), I am going to maintain that it is a hoax/patent nonsense (which Google is unable to find) and a possible BJAODN candidate. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Andrew Peach exists but the word isn't Googlable (or in OED). Possibly a neologism of his but unverifiable. Dlyons493 18:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. MCB 19:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No hits. Nonsense and a hoax. --A D Monroe III 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. -- Curps 04:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
err.(ahem)....just because you don't understand it doesn't make it nonsense.
- Yet another unsigned comment from User:82.195.99.23 with no attempt to provide verification. Where is any evidence that this is not something you made up?--WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, it's real easy to sign and date your comments/edits. Just type four tildes, "~~~~--", like this: WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another unsigned comment from User:82.195.99.23 with no attempt to provide verification. Where is any evidence that this is not something you made up?--WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
test 82.195.99.23 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok fine. delete it 82.195.99.23 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up so easily. I have read about asquantabism before. :-) 195.96.144.45 00:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I can't argue cos they are effectively right... I read "Asquantabism for Dogs" and touched upon it briefly as a philo module at Uni, but i can't find it on Amazon nor Google anywhere... 82.195.99.23 03:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.