| Revision as of 01:56, 13 April 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:43, 25 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,670,748 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (2x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| **I don't think it's uncivil. As you note, it had been debated on ] for over a week, because it was mistakenly created as a category rather than an article. I took the step of following consensus there and moved it to articlespace, but I had no illusions that it was an article worth keeping. I expect some people from CfD were waiting for the article to be created so they could bring it up for deletion, and that's fine with me. YMMV. (Also, the ] doesn't inspire me with confidence, since it's entirely notices of possible copyvio. So even though I can't find this text elsewhere on the web, it feels like it's copied from somewhere. Just a hunch, though.)--] (]) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | **I don't think it's uncivil. As you note, it had been debated on ] for over a week, because it was mistakenly created as a category rather than an article. I took the step of following consensus there and moved it to articlespace, but I had no illusions that it was an article worth keeping. I expect some people from CfD were waiting for the article to be created so they could bring it up for deletion, and that's fine with me. YMMV. (Also, the ] doesn't inspire me with confidence, since it's entirely notices of possible copyvio. So even though I can't find this text elsewhere on the web, it feels like it's copied from somewhere. Just a hunch, though.)--] (]) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Re-write to eliminate POV.''' ] (]) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | * '''Re-write to eliminate POV.''' ] (]) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''—full of POV drivel. Anyone who wants to create a decent version of the article is free to do so, regardless of whether or not we delete it at this time. < |
*'''Delete'''—full of POV drivel. Anyone who wants to create a decent version of the article is free to do so, regardless of whether or not we delete it at this time. <span style="color: #7026DF;">╟─]]►]─╢</span> 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *:It's not full of POV ! It's full of useful information. When it was claiming things, I've sorted it out so that it doesn't make any particular claim. I wouldn't say that because there is bad numeracy in Latin America, we should delete this article because it says there is bad numeracy in Latin America. There is Bad numeracy in Latin America ! Seriously ! ] (]) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | *:It's not full of POV ! It's full of useful information. When it was claiming things, I've sorted it out so that it doesn't make any particular claim. I wouldn't say that because there is bad numeracy in Latin America, we should delete this article because it says there is bad numeracy in Latin America. There is Bad numeracy in Latin America ! Seriously ! ] (]) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *::It is full of POV. < |
*::It is full of POV. <span style="color: #A20846;">╟─]]►]─╢</span> 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *:::It's an essay, ]; it's personal point of view ], and it's original research ]; The claims in the article will neded dozens of reliable, well sourced inline references (]) before it will fall within any Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion.--] (]) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | *:::It's an essay, ]; it's personal point of view ], and it's original research ]; The claims in the article will neded dozens of reliable, well sourced inline references (]) before it will fall within any Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion.--] (]) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' To me, it reads as an essay. The topic is probably valid, but this article doesn't address it in an encyclopaedic manner. "Some people" isn't good form, and there is opinion. And there are other issues, such as a total lack of referencing. If anyone can rewrite, and provide sources, please do so. It's not the subject itself I am objecting to. ] (]) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' To me, it reads as an essay. The topic is probably valid, but this article doesn't address it in an encyclopaedic manner. "Some people" isn't good form, and there is opinion. And there are other issues, such as a total lack of referencing. If anyone can rewrite, and provide sources, please do so. It's not the subject itself I am objecting to. ] (]) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 25 March 2023
- 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. –MuZemike 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Numeracy in Latin America
- Numeracy in Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD declined. Essay that is a classic example of WP:NOT. Ray 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- Ray 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ray 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is an essay - it seems to be a pretty good article, and tells you lots of things about numeracy in Latin America. If it can be improved, it should be, otherwise it is fine how it is. Look at http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Numeracy+in+Latin+America%22 - there are plenty of people talking about Numeracy in Latin America, and deleting this article will not help increase the amount of knowledge on the subject Numeracy in Latin America seeing as the article contains useful information. there is also a need for the article to be improved so it looks like a standard wikipedia article with pictures and so forth, but that can be done by anyone. I will be making some changes to the article. Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an essay rather than an article. (FYI, you'll find my name in the History as starting this article. I only completed the transition of this article from its previous existence as a category. See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_20#Category:Numeracy_in_Latin_America.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Reads like an essay/OR. There are no reliable sources to support notability. Limongi (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not just an essay, but worse, a POV opinion piece. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination is a classic example of NOT following WP:BEFORE. All the nominator seems to have done is propose the article for deletion within a few hours of its creation - an obvious incivility and then nominate for deletion when this was, of course, refused. The article was created as a result of recent discussion in a similar forum: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 20#Category:Numeracy in Latin America and so bringing it here so soon is disruptive. It is trivial work to improve the article, as I shall demonstrate, and failing that modest effort, it would be better to merge to Numeracy which could use some global perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is an opinion essay that is hopelessly non-encyclopedic from top to bottom. Anyhow, that was my evaluation of the article, and if you feel it's trivial to rewrite it, feel free to do so. Personally, I feel that it's only "trivial" in the sense that a proper article would delete the content entirely, retaining only the title, and keeping a few of the sourcess, while desperately needing additional sources for balance. Ray 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's uncivil. As you note, it had been debated on Categories for Discussion for over a week, because it was mistakenly created as a category rather than an article. I took the step of following consensus there and moved it to articlespace, but I had no illusions that it was an article worth keeping. I expect some people from CfD were waiting for the article to be created so they could bring it up for deletion, and that's fine with me. YMMV. (Also, the talk page of the category's creator doesn't inspire me with confidence, since it's entirely notices of possible copyvio. So even though I can't find this text elsewhere on the web, it feels like it's copied from somewhere. Just a hunch, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Re-write to eliminate POV. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete—full of POV drivel. Anyone who wants to create a decent version of the article is free to do so, regardless of whether or not we delete it at this time. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not full of POV ! It's full of useful information. When it was claiming things, I've sorted it out so that it doesn't make any particular claim. I wouldn't say that because there is bad numeracy in Latin America, we should delete this article because it says there is bad numeracy in Latin America. There is Bad numeracy in Latin America ! Seriously ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is full of POV. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's an essay, WP:ESSAY; it's personal point of view WP:POV, and it's original research WP:OR; The claims in the article will neded dozens of reliable, well sourced inline references (WP:RS) before it will fall within any Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion.--Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is full of POV. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not full of POV ! It's full of useful information. When it was claiming things, I've sorted it out so that it doesn't make any particular claim. I wouldn't say that because there is bad numeracy in Latin America, we should delete this article because it says there is bad numeracy in Latin America. There is Bad numeracy in Latin America ! Seriously ! Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete To me, it reads as an essay. The topic is probably valid, but this article doesn't address it in an encyclopaedic manner. "Some people" isn't good form, and there is opinion. And there are other issues, such as a total lack of referencing. If anyone can rewrite, and provide sources, please do so. It's not the subject itself I am objecting to. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Most definitely reads lilke an essay. --Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yes it is an essay, but more to the point, no clear demonstration of why this topic deserves an article seperate from numeracy itself. Eusebeus (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Without prejudice against recreation from reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)- Speedily delete under WP:CSD#G12. The article appears to be mostly assembled from paragraphs of . Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the copyvio seals it, but even if not, it's a poorly sourced, badly skewed essay on a topic that isn't particularly latin american (education isn't perfect in lots of places; latam is just one of them).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (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.