RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Polymeric falcighol derivation

Polymeric falcighol derivation | Result: eh

Polymeric falcighol derivation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Already covered on the deep web page. This page as it is now is hardly missional; it just has quotes ffs.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 06:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   A reminder that this still exists.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 18:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

2. -D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Does the job perfectly Deku-shrub (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   So what? If you are worried about Google rank alone, then you should have put this in the redirect section. Perhaps instead of strawmanning, you discuss the actual points I made about the page being poor in quality.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   We have an article on this fallacy, argumentum ad Google ranking!—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Goat

Would we lose the Google search ranking for that term if we just kept it as a redirect? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Did we ever care about google page rankings? 85.234.65.51 (talk) (Sophie) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we really want people who google this shit to get pointed to another page which lends credence to this myth? Zionist Goy (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)