Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videohypertransference
- 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 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors "Videohypertransference" does not appear to exist. I'm not sure whether this counts as original research or just nonsense, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here. Delete AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & un-verifiable WP:V.--blue520 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Google hits all seem to stem from the Wikipedia listing. Rklawton 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources cited in the article :: Colin Keigher 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Some guy 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's a neologism, bordering on psychotic. Parts of the text are good, but not in an article of this name. - Richardcavell 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as patent nonsense --Paul Carpenter 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To justify an article like this it needs to be tightly referenced. Tyrenius 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as largely unsourced, and with no evidence for the claimed term. -- Mithent 18:55, 17 April 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.