Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency analysis, more concisely

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. Xanzzibar 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR fork of Frequency analysis --Mmx1 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR fork per Mmx1. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, o Etaoin Shrdlu. JIP | Talk 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 14:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NOR. ProhibitOnions 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orires. Oliver Keenan
• Keep NOT ORIGINAL it cites a book, doesn't say I did all this! This is cool as hell wtf is with all the deletes? --DragonWR12LB 07:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cryptocruft and unnecessary fork. Haikupoet 03:44, 23 March 2006 (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.