| Revision as of 16:54, 8 October 2010 editMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,264 edits →Numeracy in Latin America← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:55, 8 October 2010 edit undoMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,264 edits →Numeracy in Latin AmericaNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Keep''' This nomination is a classic example of NOT following ]. 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: ] 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 ] which could use some global perspective. ] (]) 12:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' This nomination is a classic example of NOT following ]. 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: ] 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 ] which could use some global perspective. ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 15:27, 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. <strong>]</strong>] 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * |
* '''Re-write to eliminate POV.''' ] (]) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:55, 8 October 2010
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)
- Re-write to eliminate POV. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)