- 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
original research. No google hits for Pinoski-curve. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete complete non-sense, no references, no google results, -- Malo 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, utterly unverifiable. --Apyule 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. In addition, it's bad. --A D Monroe III 16:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; original research, unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's hilarious. I know a lot of people (including myself) who have always considered doing research on a relationship that ends up looking like the "Pinowski Curve." I don't see a problem with it being left here. -Bob Saget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.206.66 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 October 2005
- Then please read our Wikipedia:no original research policy. Uncle G 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Original research, along with N-Curve (AfD discussion) and J -Curve (AfD discussion) . Delete. Uncle G 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk
19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete... or maybe BJAODN along with its partners. ;) — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Patent nonsense/probable hoax. Peter Grey 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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.