Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep as a redirect to Military designation of days and hours; the original nomination was based off of a vandalized version. Veinor (talk to me) 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E day[edit]
Blatant hoax - google doesn't show a single reference to the phrase in this context Iridescenti 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert/redirect to initial edit [1]; a redirect to Military designation of days and hours. --Fang Aili talk 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Speedy delete - patent non-sense. HagenUK 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, after the rework (better redirect), this nomination has become obsolete. However, well spotted, Iridescenti !!! HagenUK 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A google search for "E Day" NATO or "E Day" military DOES turn up references to the phrase in this context and not just from mirror sites. I feel the nomination is incorrect on that basis. Suriel1981 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The version of this site (as nominated) wasn't the military usage, which is a later change within the last couple of days, but some patent nonsense regarding the number e "E day is celebrated on the 2.71th day of the year" etc. The version of the page as it currently stands is undoubtedly valid. Iridescenti 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now. My mistake. I'll give the original vandal an official warning. Suriel1981 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The version of this site (as nominated) wasn't the military usage, which is a later change within the last couple of days, but some patent nonsense regarding the number e "E day is celebrated on the 2.71th day of the year" etc. The version of the page as it currently stands is undoubtedly valid. Iridescenti 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. The article has been reverted to a valid redirect version. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:00, 21 March 2007 (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.