Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprawling


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sprawling
 Nominated for deletion, but nominator seems not to have created a deletion page (and its an IP so no point trying to contact them). So I'll nominate it. This is a non-encyclopaedic article whose function seems to be to get people to read the relevant site on Pbwiki Lurker talk 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This is a copyvio, I've taken a look at the website and its not GFDL as I originally thought it was Lurker talk 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per failure of WP:OR and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide WilyD 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable, and does not establish notability Halo 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - why not just simply rewrite it first, giving it a chance, before deciding to delete it? The link to the webpage can always be deleted and added later once it's in a encyclopaedic format. Smoothy 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there are no sources that can be employed to rewrite the article. Please familiarize yourself with Verifiability and Citing sources. Uncle G 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Already familiar with those links, thank you, however, I was hoping that someone (maybe the original author) could find some proper source or knowledge in order to rewrite the article. If not then fair enough, but I would like there to be a chance first, hence the comment. Smoothy 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep temporarily - It may be worth seeing if the entry is mproved over and above that currently existing before deleting. Tim 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not if it's a copyvio (see pbwiki article). If its not deleted, then we'll have to get rid of much of the content anyway. Lurker talk 10:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article cites no sources, and what sources I can find deal with the concepts of sprawling that are covered at sprawl, to which this used to simply redirect. This is original research, a novel definition of the concept of sprawling that is peculiar to a single website, which is a wiki and not even a reliable source.  Revert to the redirect. Uncle G 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is unsourced original research -- Whpq 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can't see it gaining any worthwhile information in the future - it is all non-verifiable. Mdcollins1984 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, because it's non-notable, unsourced original research, and it's not a how-to guide (see What Wikipedia is not for details). -- Big  top  17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Amusing, fun to read over my first cup of coffee (it was on the wikify list), and a good example of creative writing. Delete per nom. SB_Johnny  | talk 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are added as to its noteworthiness.--Daveswagon 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom -- Reaper  X  22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs some re-working watch that space, give it a chance to develop. Delete in haste, repent at leisure.,7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:09, 9 August 2006 (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.