- 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. --Coredesat 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Civil sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Seems to be totally O.R. "Civil sandbox" yields 3 results on google which seem to be unrelated. Needs to be deleted per notability and OR. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The page was created today. It's got a big "under construction" box on it. How do we know the author isn't about to give a bunch of reliable references to printed sources that haven't made it onto pages indexed by Google yet? At least give them the chance to say where the term comes from.Thomjakobsen 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that box before I searched for the notability of the subject. I find it highly unlikely that there could be highly reliable printed sources that don't exist on any search engines on the internet. Even if that were the case, I doubt it would ever meet notability guidelines. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article had been there a week, I'd probably agree. But it was created today, is clearly a stub, and we should assume the author is going to make some attempt to explain where this term is from and why it's notable. Put a notability tag on it, ask for some reliable sources, give it a few days, then if nothing changes it would be eligible for a speedy delete. But to squash it on the day of creation when it's not clear vandalism or spam is far too hasty. Thomjakobsen 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Earlier decision was probably based on the "under construction" box. Wouldn't want to waste anyone's time thinking the article has any supporters... Thomjakobsen 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that box before I searched for the notability of the subject. I find it highly unlikely that there could be highly reliable printed sources that don't exist on any search engines on the internet. Even if that were the case, I doubt it would ever meet notability guidelines. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From WP:STUB: When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. There is no context - no Google hits suggest OR. If only the original poster can expand on it, then it's not Wikipedia material. MarkBul 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas in the hope they will become widespread. We must have independent, credible secondary sources that have written about a topic. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, hopeless stub with no context. Possibly an A1 for no context. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Let us give the creator of the article a chance. If he can be improved the article, then keep it. However, if this article is not improved, delete the article. RS1900 05:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with RS1900. Give this AfD the full time allowed. Bearian 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.