| Revision as of 05:32, 10 July 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,997 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:54, 10 July 2005 edit undoNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,997 edits →[]: I'll stay out of this for now, too much fighting on polygamy page; I'll let others decide.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''Delete''', a redirect to ] probably wouldn't hurt --] 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', a redirect to ] probably wouldn't hurt --] 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - (im copying Idont Havaname in congratulating Dcarrano on his well-putness) -]] 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - (im copying Idont Havaname in congratulating Dcarrano on his well-putness) -]] 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - though to be fair, polygamy used to link to anti-polygamy until I deleted the link, for all the reasons stated above. ] 05:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:54, 10 July 2005
Anti-polygamy
I find this article to be POV and it's very premise is non-sensical to me, Anti-polygamy does not sound like a good title for a "debate" on polygamy. Furthermore, no other pages currently link to it. spatfield July 9, 2005 16:48 (UTC)
- Delete; I would have said merge with polygamy, except that the article really says nothing at all so there wouldn't be any point. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Dcarrano. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
- Delete, concur with above. --Scimitar 9 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
- Delete. Well said, Dcarrano. --Idont Havaname 20:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a redirect to polygamy probably wouldn't hurt --Tothebarricades 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - (im copying Idont Havaname in congratulating Dcarrano on his well-putness) -mysekurity 05:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)