| Revision as of 23:50, 1 May 2006 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:26, 11 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''Delete - can be rewritten from scratch if desired'''. ] 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| '''Delete''' - An opinion piece for the most part frought with original research. ] 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | '''Delete''' - An opinion piece for the most part frought with original research. ] 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' per nom. Someone ought to flag down the editor with ]. ] 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Delete''' per nom. Someone ought to flag down the editor with ]. ] 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' per nom. ] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Delete''' per nom. ] 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' (I don't buy into all that 'strong' and 'weak' keep and delete crap.) Once again, deletion is the route taken without giving the main contributor a chance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.--] 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Response''' - the article would need to be re-created from scratch with a different title and I really don't know what content it would have. Thats why its up for deletion - because its an article with no real encyclopedic idea behind it and no real content. ] 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' - Original research is original research is original research. It is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, at all, period, however skillfully the author writes it up, and AfD is absolutely the proper remedy for it. ] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well!! I think the article should stay because it provides a solid framework and structure for political change analysis to scholars as michael porter's framework provides for business analysis. | |||
| Please do not over police. Rather provide ideas to make it relevent and more useful. The eagle 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The last comment was provided by the article's creator, and seems to suggest that it is, indeed, unsourced and OR. ] 14:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Comment''' - The article's creator wants it to be a source of original analysis, which is not what WP is for. If you want to completely change the premise of the article and re-create it with new content and a different title, I would have no objection. ] 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as original research, possible copyvio. ] (]) 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 10:26, 11 February 2022
- 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 of the debate was Delete - can be rewritten from scratch if desired. Tawker 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Political change
Delete - An opinion piece for the most part frought with original research. Wickethewok 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Someone ought to flag down the editor with WP:NOT. RGTraynor 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Hornplease 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (I don't buy into all that 'strong' and 'weak' keep and delete crap.) Once again, deletion is the route taken without giving the main contributor a chance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.--TheMadTim 03:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response - the article would need to be re-created from scratch with a different title and I really don't know what content it would have. Thats why its up for deletion - because its an article with no real encyclopedic idea behind it and no real content. Wickethewok 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Original research is original research is original research. It is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, at all, period, however skillfully the author writes it up, and AfD is absolutely the proper remedy for it. RGTraynor 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Response - the article would need to be re-created from scratch with a different title and I really don't know what content it would have. Thats why its up for deletion - because its an article with no real encyclopedic idea behind it and no real content. Wickethewok 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well!! I think the article should stay because it provides a solid framework and structure for political change analysis to scholars as michael porter's framework provides for business analysis. Please do not over police. Rather provide ideas to make it relevent and more useful. The eagle 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- The last comment was provided by the article's creator, and seems to suggest that it is, indeed, unsourced and OR. Hornplease 14:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The article's creator wants it to be a source of original analysis, which is not what WP is for. If you want to completely change the premise of the article and re-create it with new content and a different title, I would have no objection. Wickethewok 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, possible copyvio. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 5 May 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.