This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pcb21(talk | contribs) at 11:21, 6 September 2003(against del of 2.5g). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:21, 6 September 2003 by Pcb21(talk | contribs)(against del of 2.5g)
Currently nothing even remotely useful here. dave 06:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
has fact, translation, and link. Keep. Martin 17:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ok fine, although it is pretty sparse. I guess the stub boilerplate will serve that purpose right? dave 00:31, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I am still for deletion. Sub-stub in my opinion. Andre Engels 09:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Md. Ahiduzzaman Liton - is already blanked, according to User:Wik it is just patent nonsense. Fails the google test. andy 07:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't doubt Wiks word when he says it is by a repeat vandal. On the other hand the thing that this particular article fails the google test, is not confirming evidence in my eyes, for the subject is one that would fail the google test, even if legitimate. If it is a vandalism like Wik says (and I believe him), it is of a particularly sneaky type. This vandal deserves special attention, if so. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I listed it here as it was an orphan to make sure it does not get lost in its current state, but didn't dared to use my sysop powers to delete it right away. Now checking the other contributions from that IP number - they look like valid stuff about Bangladesh (not that I know anything about that country except where it is), so I wonder why Wik wrote it's vandalism. andy 08:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Google does find an Md. Ahiduzzaman of the rice research institute. No idea whether this remark has any use. Andre Engels 11:04, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why this IP could be considered as a vandal: its contribution about Bangladesh are a bit stubish, but they seem OK. If he's inventing all this must be a sinister character... Muriel Gottrop 11:28, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Although that user did contribute some articles which appear to be factual (e.g. Bogra), he then did some obvious vandalism which you can't see now because it has already been deleted. As to Ahiduzzaman Liton, why would it fail the Google test if it were legitimate? "He masterminded the toppling of Lt. General H. M. Ershad's 9 years' autocratic rule over Bangladesh"? Don't you think it would have been reported in many places if the toppling of Ershad in 1990 was masterminded by a 16-year-old student leader? It is true that student protests played a role in his overthrow, but this name doesn't appear anywhere. He is certainly not "famous" or "known for" anything as the article claims. --Wik 03:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Diasystem - self-reflecting definition of the term, I guess it is just nonsense. andy 07:32, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Croatian language links to that page, and in that context the link seems to make sense; however the text would have to be expanded and rewritten to be kept. Kosebamse 09:09, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Or even easier, put it all into heart, as there is little about anatomy there, and we don't really need these short articles where nobody will look for the information. Kosebamse 18:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
2.5G - Should be merged with an article on cell phones.Vancouverguy 23:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Against deletion. It's longer than a stub, and a well-defined subject. I see no reason to merge it elsewhere. Andre Engels 07:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Also against deletion. 2.5G may be little more than marketing spin in some ways.. but is a well-used term and could exist by itself with a little shaping of the article. Pete 11:21, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
