Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive and negative open spaces

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. Dakota 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positive and negative open spaces

Content is "Any outdoor space which possesses an identifiable shape is classified as positive. Similarly, Any outdoor space which does not possess an identifiable shape is classified as negative. this is stub". This article has too many problems for an exhaustive list: not much more than a simple dictionary definition, fails WP:NEO, unclear, unsourced, possible original research, dead end. Contested prod. MER-C 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I can't even understand what the article is trying to say. —Caesura^(t) 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteSounds like terms thrown around by current architecture, but an article needs more content and references to show the term is more than a neologism.Edison 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef. No sources, so it may not be anything more than a neologism (if it's not completely made up). Doesn't even assert if its a architectural concept or what. --The Way 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced dictionary defiction. See also WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:Complete bollocks QuiteUnusual 21:52, 25 October 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.