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 was delete per WP:SNOW (not speedy). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating science

[edit]
Celebrating science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO, et al Deadbeef 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the irony is lost on you: complaining that I didn't follow the proper bureaucratic procedure in invoking WP:SNOW. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that "speedy delete" has very precise definitions in this regard. Semantics, I know, but I feel like it's required to point this out whenever it pops up. Ansh666 21:33, 30 July 2013 (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.