- 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 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it sounds like nonsense and is nonverifiable (sounds like a play on Mole (unit)). I don't think it's speedyable, however, as it doesn't meet any of the criteria. The text itself is very readable, even if the concept sounds crazy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Equendil 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can find no evidence of the treatise cited, but maybe it exists. Sound suspicious though. SM247 02:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. The alleged treatise does not appear in the complete bibliography of John Arbuthnot - nor does anything like it. In addition, Henry Aldrich was a theologian, not a scientist. Nicely done though. Bejnar 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as gibberish --DV8 2XL 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above digital_me(t/c) 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN per above. ~Chris t.c.e.@ 22:59, 30 May 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.