Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porous cities


 * 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. Sandstein 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Porous cities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced neologism —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- per nom. Neither of the links even includes the term. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The first external link does expand on the term ? Corpx 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Marlith  T / C  17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - google does not find widespread usage of the phrase. Linkling article is mostly a one-off coing of the term. Artw 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Unsourced neologism" as the nom stated. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are some neologisms that are made up by people who don't have a lot of common sense, and this is one of them. How many besides me thought that a "porous city" would be, duh, a type of city?  I read this twice; that's what it isn't, but I can't figure out what it is.  Mandsford 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. To water conservation at this time. • Lawrence Cohen  05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this is a common term. -- JamesTeterenko 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.