Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion of canal water into drinking water
- 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. Sr13 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversion of canal water into drinking water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This "article" is poorly written and not encyclopaedic. It seems to promote one person's vague opinion, without any real content, sense of direction, or purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevclarke (talk • contribs)
- Delete short badly-written essay. —David Eppstein 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, poorly-written essay, at best it's just OR. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an essay host. Hut 8.5 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Badly written, unreferenced and unencyclopaedic. --Belovedfreak 16:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete, Poorly written, unreferenced personal essay. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Textbook case of original research. Wikipedia is not a place to put up your essays on whatever you happen to want to write on. --Wingsandsword 00:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sorry to say…why wasn’t this tagged for “Speedy” as nonsense. Shoessss | Chat 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion, and I really didn't want to be too hasty. I will look into "speedy deletion" candidates in more detail. ;-) I think this should go as soon as possible, and I did want to mark it some way at least that would get people more powerful than me to pay attention. Leevclarke 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's an essay. I'll check around for a speedy rationale. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, came across this while copy-editing. Doesn't seem to provide much useful information that isn't available elsewhere. Have corrected some spelling/grammar in the meantime.Kateshortforbob 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The concluding sentence... "Units which automatically draw in and purify canal water would provide a healthier drinking supply for millions of people."... suggests that this was a an assignment for someone in high school or even junior high or elementary school. No doubt, it got an "A", but it's not a Wikipedia article. Purification of water is an important topic and probably covered elsewhere. Mandsford 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked. It is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 22 July 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.