- 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as crude copyvio; I considered a redirect to bisector but this is an unlikely typo. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bisector plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article seems to be a mistake in translation; it appears to be about a bisector plane. However, we have lumped all such content into bisection. Rather than merging from a spurious term, I suggest outright deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As is, the text appears to be unsalvageable: as far as I can see, this appears to be at least partially machine-translated from the source given at http://assex.altervista.org/prog-grafica/tav2005/tav7-1.htm -- either delete as copyvio, or delete as unsalvageable content where a total rewrite would be needed to make an intelligible article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and The Anome. I don't think anything useful can be salvaged. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Agree with nominator. Looks like a mistake and should read bisection plane, which is already covered under Bisection. Shoessss | Chat 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Poor translation; does not merit merging; intended to be "plane", not "plan". — ERcheck (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Translating the text from the source (poorly) doesn't make the text freely licensed. So tagged. (Even disregarding copyright issues, though, this is so badly translated as to be practically useless.) Zetawoof(ζ) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've run this through Google and Babelfish, and while there seems to be some commonality of terminology, I wouldn't call it a copyvio per se. Not that it makes much difference. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.