Talk:.bzh

Proposed deletion
The only source for this article is a website which requires a password.

The ICANN website barely mentions this proposal. It is also mentioned in one document: http://gsa.icann.org/search?q=bzh&site=icann&client=icann&proxystylesheet=icann&output=xml_no_dtd

Hence, the information is not verifiable. It's OK to mention it in Proposed top-level domain, but there is not enough information for a whole article. --Amir E. Aharoni 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected the link to the website dedicated to promoting .bzh.
 * However, the deletion proposal is still in power. The website has nice graphics, but its main focus is a petition for creating .bzh. It has very little information about the actual proposal and the people behind it. English and French of the site list rationale for the creation of .bzh, but it's totally obvious and doesn't deserve its own article. They also have a couple of names and contact information for the people behind the proposal, but no additional information about them.
 * .cat is a very good thing, and i think that .bzh can succeed, too, but currently the information about this subject is hardly verifiable. Sorry, but that doesn't justify an article; please correct me if i'm wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "prod" template. While there is a need for more citations, the proposal is recognized by ICANN and the article seems to be in line with other articles on proposed domains. I'd suggest putting out a request for assistance with finding more verifiable information, rather than just deleting it. --Ckatz chat spy  08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find more significant sources, please add them.
 * This article in line with other articles on proposed domains, but all of those articles are pretty bad and mostly copied from one another and cite inspiration from the success of .cat. Unfortunately, this one is among the worst.
 * Again - i sincerely think that creating a .bzh domain is a pretty good idea, but currently i can't find enough information about this idea to justify an article.
 * Currently i tend to change my deletion proposal to a merge-and-redirect proposal. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, maybe move the content to GeoTLD, and use  #REDIRECT GeoTLD . --217.184.142.36 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very familiar with domain names and this one is insignificant and should be merged with a larger list (preferably a sortable tables) of the other New gTLDs but the issue there comes with the volume of domain extensions that would have to be merged. Jefferythomas (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)