- 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. – Robert 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
See this LiveJournal entry, this comment "You should add your scale to Wikipedia, thus lending it a veneer of respectability" and subsequent replies.
--Matthias Bauer 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - totally empty google. Don't know how you found the LJ entry, but well done. Looks like something that someone made up. Looks valid though, but currently not in use. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Movementarian 12:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although I like the idea. The exponential-ness of the Scoville scale has always struck me as a bit ungainly (one billion scovilles?!?) -- 12.146.113.247 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Crap, I've been doing that a lot lately. That vote is me. -- Plutor 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for intentional trolling. This was created for the express purpose of wasting our time. --Agamemnon2 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia should not promote newly invented things (WP:NOR makes a lot of sense here). I usually like articles that have the name "Кузьма" in them (just because), but not this one. Kusma (討論) 05:16, 13 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.