Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morris Poole Examination Suite
=[[Morris Poole Examination Suite]]=
:{{la|Morris Poole Examination Suite}} ([{{fullurl:Morris Poole Examination Suite|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morris Poole Examination Suite}}&action=delete}} delete]) –
As it stands this is unverifiable. No sources in the article and I can find nothing on google. Nothing to suggest that it meets notability standards. BelovedFreak 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Even if 100% true, it's not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — Nn, no references, short and stubby. Good articles should grab the reader's attention, and with this one, I don't want to learn more. This could have been prodded, FYI the nominator. --Lord₪Sunday 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::a) I prefer AFD to prod because if the article is deleted it can then be speedied under G4 if and when it's recreated.
::b) It was prodded once and prod notice was removed. So, to AFD.--BelovedFreak 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It's actually pretty hard to come up with a policy-based reason for rejecting this article, since we don't have a WP:Notability (big rooms) guideline (at least, I hope that link doesn't turn out to be a blue one). All I can say is that there would have to be a whole lot of reliable sources attesting to the notability of a room before I would advocate its inclusion, and I don't see them for this one. Redirection to Hundred of Hoo School is a possibility, but I doubt this title merits even that. Deor (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Hundred of Hoo School -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2008 (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.