| Revision as of 01:39, 31 October 2005 editUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits →[]: strange reasons for a vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:45, 31 October 2005 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| *'''Delete''' the first page of results on this page are from Lyndon LaRouche affiliated pages so ] is a real problem with this article. ] 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' the first page of results on this page are from Lyndon LaRouche affiliated pages so ] is a real problem with this article. ] 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' concur with above; the article is also probably a copy vio of this page:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110abba_lerner.html --] 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' concur with above; the article is also probably a copy vio of this page:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110abba_lerner.html --] 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' If an event happened, it is notable enough for inclusion. As long as it can be shown that it did indeed happen--which can be easily done by, for instance, inquiring of Queens College--then it should stay; the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article |
*'''Keep''' If an event happened, it is notable enough for inclusion. As long as it can be shown that it did indeed happen--which can be easily done by, for instance, inquiring of Queens College--then it should stay; the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article. And I don't see how it can be considered a copyvio. ] 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -] 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | **I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -] 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *** See, the problem is that your premise is false. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable. As for verifiability, see my earlier entry. As I said, "the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article". If this means leaving just a stub, so be it--a stub is better than nothing at all. And I fail to see how it is a "slight re-wording"...it contains the same facts, but it's hardly a re-wording of the particular presentation of the facts that FRS linked to. ] 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 31 October 2005
Lerner-LaRouche debate
The topic of this article is a debate on economics that occured 34 years ago. It has no sources, and no assertion of notability. Previous ArbCom decision holds that LaRouche sources are not reliable (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) and no other sources for this are available. Willmcw 01:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this before the LaRouchie Sockpuppets get here. Karmafist 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the first page of results on this page are from Lyndon LaRouche affiliated pages so WP:V is a real problem with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete concur with above; the article is also probably a copy vio of this page:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110abba_lerner.html --FRS 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep If an event happened, it is notable enough for inclusion. As long as it can be shown that it did indeed happen--which can be easily done by, for instance, inquiring of Queens College--then it should stay; the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article. And I don't see how it can be considered a copyvio. Kurt Weber 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -Willmcw 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- See, the problem is that your premise is false. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable. As for verifiability, see my earlier entry. As I said, "the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article". If this means leaving just a stub, so be it--a stub is better than nothing at all. And I fail to see how it is a "slight re-wording"...it contains the same facts, but it's hardly a re-wording of the particular presentation of the facts that FRS linked to. Kurt Weber 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -Willmcw 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)