Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unto-

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. Shereth 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unto-[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe you're right. They could be just an opinion from Jim Blower. I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false.User:Veraladeramanera (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced. Also, should be removed from Non-SI prefix if not sourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "I would still like to ask that the articles not be deleted until they are proven to be false," is exactly wrong. WP:V. Pop Secret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Pop Secret --T-rex 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not in the official SI units, and the stuff was made up. I've already proven to Veraladeramanera that non-usage is indeed the case, as they are indeed not part of the SI listing. See the related AFDs for my comment that I am not bothering to duplicate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (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.