Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Notation Method

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 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Notation Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is Wikipedia:Original research, as admitted by the author on my talk page: "The reason I can't cite sources is because this has never been documented before", which is the very definition of original research. It is also a non-notable neologism, as demonstrated by a Google search which returns only this article. There are other problems with this article, but I'll leave them for now, for fear of being uncivil. Mak (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Clearly Original Research and this is not a place for stuff dreamt up in music school. Eusebeus 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A whopping two ghits, being the article itself. Agent 86 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article creator admits that it's OR. --Charlene 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I originally {{prod}}ded the article. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not Original research in any way. Maybe Original documentation, but that doesn't violate any policy! Fine! Do you you want! It's obvious that all of you are stuffy headed, puffed up and arogant. You must have nothing better to do than try and run people off! So here, have your brain stimulating web pages of unimportant babel. You can be sure that before I come back to Wikipedia again I'll make sure I'm a genius like all of you so I can fit in. Because you obviously think that you are SO much smarter than everyone. By all means be as "uncivil" as you like you wont hurt my feelings any! It's not like I put any stock in anything you say, you two faced òinseach! (look it up) As for Wikipedia, not only will I refrain from using it, but will also reccomend that no one else does either. Maybe going as far as to create a web page(citing appropriate sources and mentioning all of your accounts of course). So delete my article and have fun with playing your little game, "hey look at me I am an intellect,......Delete!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.61 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - if the creator of the article is a vicious, nasty troll, you can be fairly sure he has written complete crap. Which he has. Moreschi 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, and bollocks, too Lurker ^oi! 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR plus hissy fit. --Folantin 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article claims that the Progressive Notation Method was organized by Nik Spikes, yet Google has no mention of Nik Spikes associated with any musical topic other than this article. John Link 08:03, 25 November 2006 (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.